^vlOS-ANGElfj 


AfclOS-ANGElfj 


2     g 

£     3 


^     i 

"^n        O 


^•IIBRARY^ 

•£•       >*3 


m  t>5 

|     2 

%OJITV3-JO 


^      § 

I! 


5     s 

^*          •**• 


£     - 

S     g 


^AavaaiHN 


5 


^•lOSANCEIfj 


V/O  i  nvjunn -|\\X  ^'Jr\t 


^      « 


g    I 

I  i 
I  %. 


?i  ivr/u^ 

0^        %OJI1V3'JO: 


T  H 


EXAMINED, 


BY 


COMPARING  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  WITH 
THE  OLD. 


BY  GEORGE  BETHUNE  ENGLISH,  A.M. 


"  First  understand—  then  judge." 

"  Bring  forth  the  people  blind,  although  they  have  eyes  ; 
And  deaf,  although  they  have  ears. 

Let  them  produce  their  witnesses,  that  they  may  be  justified  ,- 
Or  let  them  hear  in  their  turn,  and  say,  THIS  is  TRUE." 

ISAIAH. 


RE-PRINTED  FOR  THE  SUBSCRIBERS. 


1839. 


TO 

THE  INTELLIGENT  AND  THE  CANDID, 

WHO    ARE 

WILLING  TO  LISTEN  TO  EVERY  OPINION 

THAT  IS  SUPPORTED  BY  REASON  J 

f  m 

NOT   AVERSE    TO    BRINGING  THEIR  OWN  OPINIONS 

TO  THE  TEST    OF  EXAMINATION; 

THIS  BOOR 

IS  RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED 
BY 

THE  AUTHOR. 


2111212 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Introductory  Chapter. 

CHAPTER  II. 
Statement  of  the  question  in  dispute. 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  characteristics  of  the  Messiah,  as  given  by  the  Hebrew 
Prophets. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  character  of  Jesus  tested  by  those  characteristic  marks  of 
the  Messiah,  given  by  the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament. 

CHAPTER  V. 

Examination  of  the  arguments  from  the  Old  Testament  adduced 
in  the  New,  to  prove  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Mes- 
siah. 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Examination  of  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  this  was  done  that 
it  might  be  fulfilled." 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Examination  of  the  arguments  alleged  from  the  Hebrew  Pro- 
phets, to  prove  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Statement  of  arguments  which  prove  that  Jesus  was  not  the 
Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament. 

CHAPTER  IX. 

On  the  character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ;  and  the  weight  to  be 
allowed  to  the  argument  of  Martyrdom,  as  a  test  of  truth  in 
this  question. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Miscellaneous. 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Whether  the  Mosaic  Law  be  represented  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  a  temporary  or  a  perpetual  institution. 

CHAPTER  XII. 

On  the  character  of  Paul,  and  his  manner  of  reasoning. 
CHAPTER  XIII. 

Examination  of  some  Doctrines  in  the  New  Testament,  derived 
from  the  Cabbala,  the  Oriental  Philosophy,  and  the  tenets  of 
Zoroaster. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

A  consideration  of  "  the  Gift  of  Tongues,"  and  other  miracu- 
lous powers  ascribed  to  the  Primitive  Christians  ;  and  whe- 
ther recorded  miracles  are  infallible  proofs  of  the  Divine 
authority  of  Doctrines  said  to  have  been  confirmed  by  them. 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Application  of  the  two  tests,  said  in  Deuteronomy  to  have  been 
given  by  God,  as  discriminating  a  true  Prophet  from  a  false 
one,  to  the  character  and  actions  of  Jesus. 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Examination  of  the  evidence,  external  and  internal,  in  favour  of 
the  credibility  of  the  Gospel  History. 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

On  the  peculiar  morality  of  the  New  Testament,  as  it  affects 
individuals. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

On  the  same,  as  it  affects  nations  and  Political  Societies. 
CHAPTER  XIX. 

A  consideration  of  some  supposed  advantages  attributed  to  the 
New,  over  the  Old  Testament ;  and  whether  the  Doctrine  of 
a  Resurrection,  and  a  life  to  come,  is  not  taught  in  the  Old 
Testament,  in  contradiction  to  the  assertion,  that  "  Life  and 
immortality  were  brought  to  light  by  the  Gospel." 

Conclusion.— —Appendix, Addenda. 


PREFACE. 


THE  celebrated  Dr.  Price,  in  his  valuable  "  Observations 
on  the  Importance  of  the  American  Revolution,"  addressed  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  observes,  that  "  It  is  a  com- 
mon opinion,  that  there  are  some  Doctrines  so  sacred,  and 
others  of  so  bad  a  tendency,  that  no  Public  Discussion  of  them 
ought  to  be  allowed."  Were  this  a  right  opinion,  all  the  per- 
secution that  has  ever  been  practised  would  Be  justified.  For  if 
it  is  a  part  of  the  duty  of  civil  magistrates  to  prevent  the  dis- 
cussion of  such  Doctrines,  they  must,  in  doing  this,  act  on 
their  own  judgments  of  the  nature  and  tendency  of  Doctrines  ; 
and,  consequently,  they  must  have  a  right  to  prevent  the  dis- 
cussion of  all  Doctrines,  which  they  think  to  be  too  sacred  for 
discussion,  or  too  dangerous  in  their  tendency  ;  and  this  right 
they  must  exercise  in  the  only  way  in  which  civil  power  is  ca- 
pable of  exercising  it ;  "  by  inflicting  penalties  upon  all  who 
oppose  sacred  Doctrines,  or  who  maintain  pernicious  opinions." 
In  Mahometan  countries,  therefore,  magistrates  would  have  a 
right  to  silence,  and  punish  all  who  oppose  the  divine  mission 
of  Mahomet,  a  doctrine  there  reckoned  of  the  most  sacred  na- 
ture. The  like  is  true  of  the  doctrines  of  transubstantiation, 
worship  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  &c.  &c.  in  Popish  countries ;  and 
of  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  Satisfaction,  &c.  in  Protestant 
countries.  All  such  laws  are  right,  if  the  opinion  I  have  men- 
tioned is  right.  But  in  reality,  civil  power  has  nothing  to  do 
in  such  matters,  and  civil  governors  go  miserably  out  of  their 
proper  province,  whenever  they  take  upon  them  the  care  of 
truth,  or  the  support  of  any  doctrinal  points.  They  are  not 
judges  of  truth,  and  if  they  pretend  to  decide  about  it,  they 
will  decide  wrong.  This,  all  the  countries  under  heaven  think 
of  the  application  of  civil  power  to  doctrinal  points  in  every 
country,  but  their  own.  It  is  indeed,  superstition,  idolatry, 
and  nonsense,  that-civil  power  at  present  supports  almost  every 
•where,  uader  the  idea  of  supporting  sacred  truth,  and  opposing 
dangerous  error.  Would  not  therefore  its  perfect  neutrality 
be  the  greatest  blessing  ?— Would  not  the  interest  of  truth  gain 


unspeakably,  were  all  the  Rulers  of  States  to  aim  at  nothing 
but  keeping  the  peace ;  or  did  they  consider  themselves  bound 
to  take  care,  not  of  the  future,  but  the  present  interest  of  man  ; 
not  of  their  souls,  and  of  their  faith,  but  of  their  persons  and 
property  ;  not  of  any  ecclesiastical,  but  secular  matters  only  ? 

'All  the  experience  of  past  time  proves,  that  the  conse- 
quence of  allowing  civil  power  to  judge  of  the  nature  and  ten- 
dency of  Doctrines,  must  be  making  it  a  hindrance  to  the  pro- 
gress of  truth,  and  an  enemy  to  the  improvement  of  the  world.' 

'  I  would  extend  these  observations  to  all  points  of  faith, 
however  sacred  they  may  be  deemed.  Nothing  reasonable  can 
suffer  by  discussion.  All  Doctrines,  really  sacred,  must  be 
clear,  and  incapable  of  being  opposed  with  success.' 

'  That  immoral  tendency  of  Doctrines  which  has  been  urged 
as  a  reason  against  allowing  the  public  discussion  of  them,  may 
be  either  avowed  and  direct ;  or  only  a  consequence  with  which, 
they  are  charged.  If  it  is  avowed  and  direct,  such  doctrines 
certainly  will  not  spread  ;  the  principles  rooted  in  human  na- 
ture will  resist  them,  and  the  advocates  of  them  will  be  soon 
disgraced.  If,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  only  a  consequence  with 
which  a  Doctrine  is  charged,  it  should  be  considered  how  apt 
all  parties  are  to  charge  the  doctrines  they  oppose  with  bad 
tendencies.  It  is  well  known  that  Calvinists,  and  Armenians, 
Trinitarians  and  Socinians,  fatalists  and  Free-  Willers,  are 
continually  exclaiming  against  one  another's  opinions,  as  dan- 
gerous and  licentious.  Even  Christianity  itself  could  not, 
at  its  first  introduction,  escape  this  accusation.  The  professors 
of  it  were  considered  as  Atheists,  because  they  opposed  Pagan 
Idolatry ;  and  their  religion  was,  on  this  account,  reckoned  a 
destructive  and  pernicious  enthusiasm.  If,  therefore,  the  Ru- 
lers of  a  State  are  to  prohibit  the  propagation  of  all  doctrines, 
in  which  they  apprehend  immoral  tendencies,  an  opening  will 
be  made,  as  I  have  before  observed,  for  every  species  of  perse- 
cution. There  will  be  no  doctrine,  however  true,  or  important, 
the  avowal  of  which  will  not,  in  some  country  or  other,  be  sub- 
jected to  civil  penalties." 

These  observations  bear  the  stamp  of  good  sense,  and  their 
truth  has  been  abundantly  confirmed  by  experience.  And  it  is 
the  peculiar  honor  of  the  United  States,  that  in  conformity  with 
the  principles  of  these  observations,  perfect  freedom  of  opinion, 
and  of  speech  are  here  established  by  law,  and  are  the  birthright 
of  every  citizen  thereof.  Our  country  is  the  only  one  which 
has  not  been  guilty  of  the  folly  of  establishing  the  ascendency 
of  one  set  of  religious  opinions,  and  persecuting,  or  tolerating 


IX 

all  others ;  and  which  does  not  permit  any  man  lo  harrass  his 
neighbour  because  he  thinks  differently  from  himself.  In  con- 
sequence of  these  excellent  institutions,  difference  of  religious 
sentiment  makes  here  no  breach  in  private  friendship,  and  works 
no  danger  to  the  public  security.  This  is  as  it  should  be;  for, 
in  matters  of  opinion,  especially  with  regard  to  so  important  a 
thing  as  Religion,  it  is  every  man's  natural  right,  and  duty,  to 
think  for  himself;  and  to  judge  upon  such  evidence  as  he  can 
procure,  after  he  has  used  his  best  endeavours  to  get  informa- 
tion. Human  decisions  are  of  no  weight  in  this  matter,  for 
another  man  has  no  more  right  to  determine  what  my  opinions 
shall  be,  than  I  have  to  determine  what  another  man's  opinions 
shall  be.  It  is  amazing  that  one  man  can  dare  to  presume  he 
has  such  a  right  over  another ;  and  that  any  man  can  be  so 
weak,  and  credulous,  as  to  imagine,  that  another  has  such  a 
right  over  him. 

As  it  is  every  man's  natural  right,  and  duty  to  think  and 
judge  for  himself  in  matters  of  opinion  ;  so  he  should  be  allow- 
ed freely  to  bring  forward,  and  defend  his  opinions,  and  to  en- 
deavour, when  he  judges  proper,  to  convince  others  also  of 
their  truth. 

For  unless  all  men  are  allowed  freely  to  profess  their  opinions, 
the  means  of  information,  with  respect  to  opinions,  must  in  a 
great  measure  be  wanting;  and  just  inquiries  into  their  truth  be 
almost  impracticable ;  and,  by  consequence,  our  natural  right, 
and  duty  to  think,  and  judge  for  ourselves,  must  be  rendered 
almost  nugatory,  or  be  subverted,  for  want  of  materials  whereon 
to  employ  our  minds.  A  man  by  himself,  without  communica- 
tion with  other  minds,  can  make  no  great  progress  in  know- 
ledge ;  and  besides,  an  individual  is  indisposed  to  use  his  own 
strength,  when  an  undisturbed  laziness,  ignorance,  and  preju- 
dice give  him  full  satisfaction  as  to  the  truth  of  his  opinions.— 
But  if  there  be  a  free  profession,  or  communication  of  senti- 
ments, every  man  will  have  an  opportunity  of  acquainting  him- 
self with  all  that  can  be  known  from  others.  And  many  for 
their  own  satisfaction  will  make  enquiries,  and  in  order  to  as- 
certain the  truth  of  opinions,  will  desire  to  know  all  that  can  be 
said  on  any  question. 

If  such  liberty  of  professing,  and  teaching,  be  not  allowed, 
error,  if  authorized,  will  keep  its  ground  ;  and  truth,  if  dormant, 
will  never  be  brought  to  light  ;  or,  if  authorized,  will  be  sup- 
ported on  a  false,  and  absurd  foundation,  and  such  as  would 
equally  support  error ;  and,  if  received  on  the  ground  of 
authority,  will  not  be  in  the  least  meritorious  to  its  professors. 


Besides,  not  to  encourage  capable  and  honest  men  to  profess, 
and  defend  their  opinions  when  different  from  ours,  is  to  distrust 
the  truth  of  our  own  opinions,  and  to  fear  the  light.  Such 
conduct  must,  in  a  country  of  sense,  and  learning,  increase  the 
number  of  unbelievers,  already  so  greatly  complained  of:  who, 
if  they  see  matters  of  opinion  not  allowed  to  be  professed,  and 
impartially  debated,  think,  justly  perhaps,  that  they  have  foul 
play,  and  therefore  reject  many  things  as  false,  and  ill  ground- 
ed, which  otherwise  they  might  perhaps  receive  as  truths. 

The  grand  principle  of  men  considered  as  having  relation  to 
the  Deity,  and  under  an  obligation  to  be  religious,  is,  that  they 
ought  to  consult  their  reason,  and  seek  every  where  for  the  best 
instruction  ;  and  of  Christians,  and  Protestants,  the  duty,  and 
professed  principle  is,  to  consult  reason,  and  the  Scripture,  as 
the  rule  of  their  faith  and  practice. 

But  how  can  these,  which  are  practical  principles,  be  duly 
put  in  practice,  unless  all  be  at  liberty,  at  all  times,  and  in  all 
points,  to  consider,  and  debate  with  others,  (as  well  as  with 
themselves,)  what  reason  and  Scripture  say  ;  and  to  profess,  and 
act  openly,  according  to  what  they  are  convinced  they  say  ? — 
How  can  we  become  better  informed  with  regard  to  religion,  than 
by  using  the  best  means  of  information  ?  which  consist  in  con- 
sulting reason,  and  Scripture,  and  calling  in  the  aid  of  others. 
And  of  what  use  is  it  to  consult  reason,  and  Scripture  at  all,  as 
any  means  of  information,  if  we  are  not,  upon  conviction,  to 
follow  their  dictates  ? 

No  man  has  any  reason  to  apprehend  any  ill  consequences  to 
truth,  (for  which  alone  he  ought  to  have  any  concerr)  from 
free  enquiry  and  debate.  For  truth  is  not  a  thing  to  dread  exa- 
mination, but  \rhenfairly  proposed  to  an  unbiassed  understand- 
ing, is  like  light  to  the  eye  ;  it  must  distinguish  itself  from 
error,  as  light  does  distinguish  itself  from  darkness.  For,  while 
free  debate  is  allowed,  truth  is  in  no  danger,  for  it  will  never 
want  a  professor  theieof,  nor  an  advocate  to  offer  some  plea  in 
its  behalf.  And  it  can  never  be  wholly  banished,  but  where 
human  decisions,  backed  by  human  power,  carry  all  before 
them. 

We  ought  to  examine  the  foundations  of  opinions,  not  only 
that  we  may  attain  the  discovery  of  truth  ;  but  we  ought  to  do 
so  on  this  account,  because  that  it  is  our  duty  ;  and  the  way 
to  recommend  ourselves  to  the  favour  of  God.  For  opinions, 
how  true  soever,  when  the  effect  of  education,  or  tradition,  or 
interest,  or  passion,  can  never  recommend  a  man  to  God.  For 
those  ways  have  no  merit  iu  them,  and  are  the  worst  a  man  can 


possibly  take  to  obtain  truth  ;  and  therefore,  though  they  may 
be  objects  of  forgiveness,  they  can  never  be  of  reward  from 
Him. 

Having  premised  these  observations  in  order  to  persuade 
and  dispose  the  reader  to  be  candid,  I  will  now  declare  the  mo- 
tives which  induced  me  to  submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  in- 
telligent, the  contents  of  this  volume.  The  author  has  spared, 
he  thinks,  no  pains  to  arrive  at  certain  Truth  in  matters  of  Re- 
ligion ;  the  sense  of  which  is  what  distinguishes  man  from  the 
brute  ;  and  in  this  most  important  subject  that  can  employ  the 
human  understanding,  he  has  been  particularly  desirous  to  be- 
come acquainted  with  the  Grounds  and  Doctrines  of  the  Chrit- 
tian  Religion  ;  and  nothing  but  the  difficulties,  which  he  in 
this  volume  lays  before  the  public,  stagger  his  faith  in  it 

It  may  perhaps  add  to  the  interest  the  Reader  may  take 
in  this  work,  to  inform  him,  that  the  Author  was  a  believer  in 
the  Religion  of  the  New  Testament,  after  what  he  conceived  to 
be  a  sufficient  examination  of  its  evidence  for  a  divine  origin. 
He  had  terminated  an  examination  of  the  controversy  with  the 
Deists  to  his  own  satisfaction ;  i.  e.,  he  felt  convinced  that  their 
objections  were  not  insurmountable,  when  he  turned  his  atten- 
tion to  the  consideration  of  the  ancient,  and  obscure  contro- 
versy between  the  Christians  and  the  Jews.  His  curiosity  was 
deeply  interested  to  examine  a  subject,  in  truth,  so  little  known, 
and  to  ascertain  the  causes,  and  the  reasons,  which  had  pre- 
vented a  people  more  interested  in  the  truth  of  Christianity  than 
any  other  from  believing  it :  and  he  sat  down  to  the  subject 
without  any  suspicion  that  the  examination  would  not  terminate 
in  convincing  him  still  more  in  favour  of  what  were  then  his 
opinions.  After  a  long,  thorough,  and  startling  examination 
of  their  Books,  together  with  all  the  answers  to  them  he  could 
obtain  from  a  Library  amply  furnished  in  this  respect,  he  was 
finally,  very  reluctantly,  compelled  to  feel  persuaded,  by  proofs 
he  could  neither  refute  nor  evade,  that  how  easily  soever 
Christians  might  answer  the  Deists,  so  called,  the  Jews  were 
clearly  too  hard  for  them.  Because  they  set  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  in  opposition,  and  reduce  Christians  to  this  fatal 
dilemma — Either  the  Old  Testament  contains  a  Revelation 
from  God,  or  it  does  not.  If  it  does,  then  the  New  Testament 
connot  be  from  God,  because  it  is  palpably,  and  importantly 
repugnant  to  the  Old  Testament  in  Doctrine,  and  some  other 
things.  Now  Jews  and  Christians,  each  of  them,  admit  the  Old 
Testament  as  containing  a  divine  Revelation ;  consequently  the 
Jews  cannot,  and  Christians  ought  not,  to  receive  and  allow  any 
thing  as  a  Revelation  from  God  which  flatly  contradicts  a  for- 
mer,  by  them  acknowledged,  Revelation  i  because  it  cannot  be 


supposed  that  God  will  contradict  himself.  On  the  other  hand 
— if  the  Old  Testament  be  not  from  God,  still  the  New  Testa- 
ment must  go  down,  because  it  asserts  that,  the  Old  Testament 
is  a  Revelation  from  God,  and  builds  upon  it  as  a  foundation. 
And  if  the  foundation  fail,  how  can  the  house  stand  ?  The 
Author  pledges  himself  to  the  Reader,  to  prove  that  they  esta- 
blish this  dilemma  completely.  And  he  cannot  help  thinking, 
that  there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  if  both  sides  of  this  strangely 
neglected  controversy  had  been  made  public  in  times  past,  and 
become  known,  that  the  consequences  would  have  been  long 
ago  fatal  at  least  to  the  New  Testament. 

But  though  he  believes  that  the  New  Testament  cannot 
stand  a  close  examination,  when  its  pretensions  are  tested  by 
the  Old  Testament,  yet  he  is  not  prepared  to  affirm,  that  the 
Old  Testament  itself  is  invulnerable.  In  fact,  so  much  can 
be  said,  and  such  a  strong  case  can  be  made  out  of  both  sides  of 
the  question  relating  to  its  supernatural  claims,  that  though  he 
shall  always  respect  the  Old  Testament  as  the  venerable  mother 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Unity  of  God,  and  the  source  from  whence 
arose  Christianity  and  Mahometanism,  and  as  undoubtedly  the 
most  ancient,  and  curious  monument  of  antiquity  we  possess  in 
the  shape  of  a  Book  ;  yet,  with  regard  to  its  supernatural  claims, 
he  has  not  as  yet  been  able  to  come  to  a  decision  satisfactory 
to  himself.  Whether  however  the  Old  Testament  be  of  divine 
authority  or  not,  the  argument  he  carries  on  is  just  as  strong  in 
one  case  as  the  other  ;  since  it  is  believed  to  be  of  divine  autho- 
rity by  both  Jews  and  Christians  ;  and  the  reasoning  in  the  vo- 
lume sets  out  with  taking  for  granted  this,  which  is  acknow- 
ledged on  both  sides  of  the  controversy,  that  is  the  subject  of 
the  Book.* 


*  There  is  nothing  which  can  more  readily  induce  a  man  of  feel- 
ing, and  benevolence,  to  hope  that  the  supernatural  claims  of  the  Old 
Testament  may  be  true,  than  the  promises  contained  in  its  Prophe- 
cies. The  splendid  descriptions  contained  in  the  Old  Testament  of 
the  renovation  of  the  earth,  and  its  restoration  to  a  paradisiacal  state  ; 
and  the  promises  it  holds  oat  of  the  happiness  of  the  human  race  upon 
it,  "  when  the  earth  is  to  be  all  Paradise,  far  more  blessed  than  that 
of  Eden,  and  far  happier  days,"  are  prospects,  however  remote,  or 
problematical,  so  delightful  to  the  mind  grieved  with  the  misery  and 
sufferings  of  the  present  state  of  things,  that  the  good  man  will  cer- 
tainly wish  that  it  might  be  so.  The  Philosopher,  while  he  asset ts 
that  such  things  may  happen,  (because  an  eternity  is  to  come ;  be- 
cause there  is  no  repugnance  nor  impossibility  in  the  nature  of  things 
to  prevent;  and  because  the  attributes  of  God  seem  to  require  that 
something  like  them  should  take  place  some  time  or  other,)  yet  must 
feel  sorry,  that  the  ancient  Book  which  holds  out  such  splendid  pros- 
pects should  not  be  attended  with  demonstrative  evidence  of  its 
divine  authority. 


xin 

The  Author  has  been  earnestly  dissuaded  from  making  pub- 
lic the  contents  of  this  volume  on  account  of  apprehended  mis- 
chievous consequences.  He  thought,  however,  that  the  age  of 
pious  frauds  ought  to  be  past,  and  their  principle  discarded,  at 
least  in  Protestant  countries.  Deception  and  error  are  always, 
sooner  or  later,  discovered  ;  and  truth,  in  the  long  run,  both  in 
politics  and  religion,  will  never  be  ultimately  harmful.  If  what 
the  Book  states  is  true,  it  ought  to  be  known,  if  it  is  erroneous, 
it  can,  and  will  be  refuted. 

It  is  certainly  a  great  pity  that  the  Old  Testament  is  a  subject  that 
admits  of  such  a  strong  case  being  made  out  of  either  side  of  the 
question  with  regard  to  its  supernatural  claims.  A  very  great  deal 
indeed  (besides  what  is  about  to  b?  mentioned)  can  be  alleged  in  fa- 
vour of  its  claims  to  a  Divine  Origin.  The  vast  antiquity  of  the  Book 
itself— the  correct  state  in  which  it  has  been  preserved,  and  handed 
down,  through  a  series  of  so  many  ages — the  interesting  nature  of  its 
contents — the  venerable  simplicity  of  its  style — the  solemn  sublimity 
of  its  poetry — the  manifest  and  unrivalled  excellence  of  its  moral  pre- 
cepts (from  whence  was  derived  all  that  is  practicable  in  the  morality 
of  the  New  Testament  and  the  Koran) — the  foresight  and  sagacity 
displayed  in  its  political  and  ceremonial  arrangements,  in  order  to 
keep  the  Hebrews  district  from  other  nations,  that  they  might  for 
ages  continue  to  answer  the  avowed  and  grand  purpose  of  giving  them 
their  law,  viz.  "  that  they  might  be  to  all  nations  the  witnesses  of 
the  unity  of  God, — that  sublime  and  peculiar  distinction  of  their  reli- 
gious  creed. — the  fact  that  the  only  nations  on  the  globe  which  pro- 
fess to  believe  in  the  Unity  of  God  derived  that  belief  from  the  pos- 
terity cf  ABRAHAM,  viz.  from  Moses,  Jesus  Christ,  and  Mahomet  ; 
and  the  equally  certain  fact,  that  Christianity  and  Mahometanism, 
the  only  established  Religions,  besides  the  Mosaic,  that  have  the 
least  claims  to  rationality,  were  derived  from  the  Old  Testament  and 
were  founded  by  descendants  from  that  Patriarch. — the  singular,  and  per- 
fectly unique  character,  and  history  of  the  Hebrew  nation, — that  it 
has  subsisted  from  times  of  such  immense  antiquity,  and  has  survived 
to  many  horrible  catastrophes  ,-  and  that  it  still  subsists  one  and  the 
same,  wherever  scattered,  or  however  oppressed.  Add  to  this  the 
numerous  prophecies  of  their  sacred  books,  with  regard  to  some  of 
which  it  certainly  /oo&sas  if  they  had  been  fulfilled.—  All  these  things 
are  so  singular,  unparalleled,  and  astonishing,  that  I  should  not  think 
much  of  that  man's  understanding,  nor  of  his  knowledge  of  the  subject, 
who  could  dogmatically  decide,  that  all  these  circumstances  can  be 
entirely  and  easily  accounted  for,  by  referring  them  to  the  sagacity  of 
their  Lawgiver. 

On  the  other  hand,  however, — when  we  are  almost  disposed  to  credit 
the  supernatural  claims  of  the  Old  Testament  ;  when  we  read 
of  the  speaking  of  Balaam's  ass  :  Joshua's  stopping  the  sun  ;  Jonah's 
living  in  the  belly  of  a  great  fish,  &c.  ;  the  man  of  sound  judgment 
would,  I  should  think,  be  apt  to  hesitate,  and  then  perhaps  settle  into 
persevering  doubt. 

Since  however,  neither  reason,  nor,  to  do  it  justice,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment itself,  intimates  such  scepticism  to  be  criminal  in  a  Gentile,  we 
may,  without  uneasiness,  to  use  the  words  of  Josephus,  say  "  of 
these  things  let  every  one  think  as  he  pleases." 


11V 

The  Author  therefore  makes  it  public,  for  these  reasons,  be- 
cause he  thinks,  that  the  matter  contained  in  the  Book,  is  true 
and  important — because  he  wished,  and  found  it  necessary  to 
justify  himself  from  contemptible  misrepresentations  uttered 
behind  his  back  ;  and  to  give  to  those  who  know  him,  good  and 
sufficient  reasons  for  past  conduct,  of  which,  those  to  whom  he 
is  known  cannot  be  ignorant  ;  and  finally,  he  thought  it  right, 
and  proper,  and  humane,  to  give  to  the  world  a  work  which 
contained  the  reasons  for  the  unbelief  of  the  countrymen  of 
Jesus  Christ;  who  for  almost  eighteen  hundred  years  have  been 
made  the  unresisting  victims  of,  as  the  reader  will  find,  ground- 
less misrepresentation,  and  the  most  amazing  cruelty  ;  because 
they  refused  to  believe  what  it  was  impossible  that  they  should 
believe,  on  account  of  reasons  their  persecutors  did  not  know, 
and  refused  to  be  informed  of. 

If  the  arguments  and  statements  contained  in  this  volume 
should  be  found  to  be  correct,  he  believes  that  every  honest 
and  candid  man,  after  his  first  surprise  that  they  should  not 
have  been  made  known  before,  will  feel  for  the  victims  of  a 
mistake  so  singular,  and  so  ancient  as  the  one  which  is  the  sub- 
ject of  the  following  pages  ;  and  will  think  with  the  author, 
that  it  is  time,  high  time,  that  the  truth  should  be  known,  and 
justice  be  done  to  them.* 

There  is  not  in  existence  a  more  singular  instance  of  the  mis- 
chievous mistakes  arising  from  taking  things^r  granted  which 
require  proof,  than  the  case  before  the  reader.  The  world  has 
all  along  been  in  total  error  with  regard  to  the  reasons  and  the 
motives  which  have  prevented  the  Hebrew  nation  from  receiv- 
ing the  System  of  the  New  Testament.  They  have  been  suc- 
cessfully accused  of  incorrigible  blindness  and  obstinacy  ;  anf 
while  volumes  upon  volumes  have  been  written  against  them, 
and  the  arguments  therein  contained  supported  and  enforced 
by  the  power  of  the  Inquisition,  and  the  oppressions  of  all 

*  "  Do  you  know  (says  Rousseau)  of  many  Christians  who  have 
taken  the  pains  to  examine  with  care  what  the  Jews  have  to  say 
against  them.  If  some  persons  have  seen  any  thing  of  the  kind,  it 
is  in  the  books'of  Christians.  A  fine  way  truly  to  get  instructed  in  the 
arguments  of  their  adversaries  !  But  what  nan  they  do  1  If  any  one 
should  dare  to  publish  among  us  Books  in  which  he  openly  favours 
their  opinions,  we  punish  the  Author,  the  Editor,  the  Bookseller. 
This  policy  is  convenient,  and  sure  always  to  be  in  the  right.  There 
it  a  pleasure  in  refuting  people  who  dare  not  open  their  lips."  Emilius. 

In  the  same  work  he  says,  that  "  he  will  never  be  convinced  that 
the  Jews  have  not  something  strong  to  say,  till  they  shall  be  permitted 
to  speak  for  themselves  without  fear  and  without  restraint."  It  was 
this  hint  of  Rousseau's  which  first  excited  the  Author's  curiosity  with 
regard  to  the  subject  of  this  Book. 


Christendom,  these  unfortunate  people  have  not  been  willingly 
suffered  to  offer  to  the  world  one  word  in  their  own  defence. — 
They  have  not  been  allowed,  after  hearing  with  patience,  both 
arguments,  and  '  railing  accusations'  in  abundance,  to  answer 
in  their  turn  ;  but  have  been  compelled,  through  the  fear  of 
confiscation,  persecution,  and  death,  to  leave  misapprehensions 
unexplained,  and  misrepresentations  unrefuted. 

Is  it  then  to  be  wondered  at,  that  mankind  have  consider- 
ed their  adversaries  as  in  the  right,  and  that  deserted  by  reason, 
and  even  their  own  Scriptures,  they  were  supported  in  their 
opinion  only  by  a  blind  and  pertinacious  obstinacy,  more  worthy 
of  wonder,  than  of  curiosity  ?  Alas  !  the  world  did  not  con- 
sider,  that  nothing  was  more  easy  than  to  confute  people,  whose 
tongues  were  frozen  by  the  terror  of  the  Inquisition  /  f  But, 
thanks  to  the  good  sense  of  this  enlightened  age,  those  times 
are  past  and  gone.  There  is  now  one  happy  country  where 
freedom  of  speech  is  allowed,  where  every  harmless  religious 
opinion  is  protected  by  law,  and  where  every  opinion  is  listened 
to  that  is  supported  by  reason.  The  time,  I  trust,  is  now  come, 
when  the  substantial  arguments  of  this  oppressed,  and,  in  this 
respect.,  certainly  calumniated  people  may  be  produced,  and 
their  reasons  set  forth,  without  the  fear  of  harm,  and  with  the 
hope  of  a  hearing  from  the  intelligent  and  candid.  They,  we 
believe,  will  be  fully  convinced,  that  their  adversaries  have  for 
so  long  a  time  triumphed  over  them  without  measure,  only  be- 
cause they  have  been  suffered  to  do  so  without  contradiction. 

The  reader  is  assured,  that,  notwithstanding  the  subject,  he 
will  find  nothing  in  this  volume  but  what  is  considered  by  the 
author  to  be  fair  and  liberal  argument ;  and  such,  no  honest 
man  ought  to  decline  looking  in  the  face.  He  has  endeavoured 
to  discuss  the  important  subject  of  the  Book  in  the  most  inof- 
fensive manner  ;  for  he  has  no  wish,  and  claims  no  right,  to 
wound  the  feelings  of  those  who  differ  from  him  in  opinion. — 
There  is  not,  nor  ought  there  to  be,  a  word  of  reproach  in  it 
against  the  moral  character  of  Jesus  Christ,  or  the  twelve  Apos- 
tles ;  and  the  utmost  the  author  attempts  to  prove,  is,  that  their 
system  was  founded,  not  upon  fraud  and  imposture,  but  upon  a 
mistake.  After  the  deaths  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  it  was 
indeed  aided  and  supported  by  very  bad  means  ;  but  its  first 
founders,  the  author  believes,  were  guilty  of  no  other  crime  than 
that  of  being  mistaken  ;  a  very  common  one  indeed. 

He  hopes,  therefore,  that  such  a  discussion  as  the  one  nowr 
laid  before  the  public,  will  be  fairly  met,  and  fairly  answered, 
if  answered  at  all;  and  that  recourse  will  not  be  had  to  dishonest 
and  ungentlemanly  misrepresentations,  and  calling  names,  in 


order  to  prevent  people  from  examining  things  they  have  a  right 
to  know,  and  in  order  to  blind  and  frighten  the  Public — the  Jury 
to  which  he  appeals.  It  is  infallibly  true,  that  the  knowledge 
of  truth  is,  and  must  be,  beneficial  to  mankind  ;  and  that,  in  the 
long  run,  it  never  was,  and  never  can  be  harmful.  It  is  equally 
certain  that  God  would  never  give  a  Revelation  so  slightly 
founded  as  to  be  endangered  by  any  sophistry  of  man.  if  the 
Christian  system  be  from  God,  it  will  certainly  stand,  no  human 
power  can  overthrow  it.  And  therefore  no  sincere  Christian 
who  believes  the  New  Testament,  ought  to  be  afraid  to  meet, 
half  way,  the  objections  of  any  one  who  offers  them  with  fair- 
ness, and  expresses  them  in  decent  language  ;  and  no  sensible 
Christian  ought  to  shut  his  ears  against  his  neighbour,  who 
respectfully  asks  "  a  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  in  him." 

The  Author  has  been  told  indeed,  that  'supposing  the  Chris- 
tian System  to  be  unfounded,  yet  that  it  is  reasonable  to  be- 
lieve, that  the  Supreme  Being  would  view  any  attempts  to  dis- 
turb it  with  displeasure,  on  account  of  its  moral  effects.'  But 
is  not  this  something  like  absurdity  ?  Can  God  have  made  it 
necessary,  that  Morals  should  be  founded  on  Delusion,  in  order 
that  they  might  be  supported  ?  Can  the  God  of  TRUTH  be 
displeased  to  have  men  convinced  that  they  have  been  mis- 
taken, or  imposed  upon  by  Revelations  pretended  to  be  from 
Him,  which  if  in  fact  not  from  him,  must  be  the  offspring  either 
of  error  or  falsehood  ?  And  if  the  Christian  System  be  in  truth 
not  from  God,  can  we  suppose,  that  in  his  eyes  its  Doctrines 
with  regard  to  Him  are  atoned  for  by  a  few  good  moral  pre- 
cepts ?  Can  we  suppose  that  that  Supreme  and  awful  Being 
can  feel  Himself  honoured  in  having  his  creatures  made  to  be- 
lieve, that  He  was  once  nine  months  in  the  womb  of  a  woman  ; 
that  God,  the  Great  and  Holy,  went  through  all  the  impurities 
of  Infancy  ;  that  he  lived  a  mendicant  in  a  corner  of  the  Earth, 
and  was  finally  scourged,  and  hanged  on  a  Gibbet  by  his  own 
creatures?  If  these  things  be  in  truth  all  mistakes,  can  we 
suppose,  that  God  is  pleased  in  having  them  believed  of  Him  ? 
On  the  contrary,  can  they,  together  with  the  Doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  I  would  respectfully  ask,  be  possibly  looked  upon  by 

Him  (if  they  are  not  true)  otherwise,  than  as  so  many 

what  I  forbear  to  mention.  But  this  is  not  all.  The  Reader 
is  requested  to  consider,  that  the  Christian  System  is  built  upon 
the  prostrate  necks  of  the  whole  Hebrew  nation.  It  is  a  tree 
which  flourished  in  a  soil  watered  by  their  tears  ;  its  leaves 
grew  green  in  an  atmosphere  filled  with  their  cries,  and  groans  ; 
and  its  roots  have  been  moistened  and  fattened  with  their  blood. 
The  ruin,  reproach,  and  sufferings  of  that  People  are  consider- 
ed, by  its  advocates,  as  the  most  striking  proofs  of  the  Divine 
authority  of  the  New  Testament.  And  for  almost  eighteen 


hundred  years  the  System  contained  in  that  Book  has  been  the 
cause  of  miseries,  and  afflictions,  to  that  nation,  the  most  hor- 
rible, and  unparalleled  in  the  history  of  man. 

Now,  if  that  system  be  indeed  Divine,  all  this  may  be  very 
well,  and  as  it  should  be.  Butr  if  perchance,  it  should  turn  out 
to  be  a  mistake,  if  it  be  in  truth  not  from  God,  will  not  then 
that  system  be  justly  chargeable  with  all  those  shocking  cruel- 
ties, which,  on  account  of  it,  have  been  inflicted  on  that  people? 

If  that  system  be  verily,  and  indeed,  founded  on  a  mistake, 
no  language — no  indignation  can  do  justice  to  its  guilt  in  this 
respect.  All  its  good  moral  effects  are  a  mere  drop  of  pure  wa- 
ter in  that  Ocean  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  blood  it  has  caused  to  be 
shed,  by  embittering  men's  minds  with  groundless  prejudices. 
And  if  it  be  not  divine,  if  it  be  plainly,  and  demonstrably  proved 
to  have  originated  in  errer,  who  is  the  man,  that  after  consider- 
ing what  has  been  suggested,  will  have  the  heart  to  come  for- 
ward, and  coolly  say,  "  that  it  is  better,  that  a  whole  nation  of 
men  should  continue,  as  heretofore,  to  be  unjustly  hated,  re- 
proached, cursed,  and  plundered,  and  massacred  on  account  of 
it,  rather  than  that  the  received  religious  System  should  be  de- 
monstrated to  be  founded  on  mistake  ?"  No  !  if  it  be  in  fact 
founded  on  mistake,  every  man  of  honour,  honesty,  and  huma- 
nity, will  say  without  hesitation — "  Let  the  Delusion  (if  it  is 
one)  be  done  away  !  which  must  be  supported  at  the  expense, 
of  Truth,  of  Justice,  and  the  happiness  and  respectability  of  a 
whole  nation,  who  are  men  like  ourselves,  and  more  unfortunate 
than  any  others  in  having  already  suffered  but  too  much  afflic- 
tion and  misery  on  account  of  it."  No  !  though  the  moral  ef- 
fects ascribed  to  this  System  of  Religion  were  as  good,  as  great, 
and  ten  times  greater,  than  they  ever  have  been,  or  can  be,  yet,  if 
it  is  a  Delusion,  it  would  be  absolutely  wicked  to  support  it,  since 
it  is  erected  upon  the  sufferings,  wretchedness,  and  oppression, 
of  a  people  w ho  compose  millions  of  the  Great  Family  of  Man- 
kind. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  ablest  modern  advocates  for  the 
Truth,  and  divine  authority  of  the  Gospel,  a*  if  they  knew  of 
no  certain  demonstrative  proof  which  could  be  adduced  in  a 
case  of  so  much  importance,  seem  to  content  themselves,  an<l 
expect  their  readers  should  be  satisfied,  with  an  accumulation 
of  probable  arguments  in  its  favour.  And  it  has  even  been  said, 
that  the  case  admits  of  no  other  hind  of  proof.  If  it  be  so,  the 
Author  requests  all,  so  persuaded,  to  consider  fora  moment, 
whether  it  could  be  reconciled  to  any  ideas  of  wisdom  in  an, 
earthly  Potentate,  if  he  should  send  an  Ambassador  to  a  foreign 

B 


state  to  mediate  a  negociation  of  the  greatest  importance, 
without  furnishing  him  with  certain,  indubitable,  credentials 
of  the  truth  and  authenticity  of  his  mission  ?  And  to  con- 
sider further,  whether  it  be  just  or  seemly,  to  attribute  to 
the  Omniscient,  Omnipotent  Deity,  a  degree  of  weakness  and 
folly  which  was  never  yet  imputed  to  any  of  his  human 
Creatures  ?  for  unless  men  are  hardy  enough  to  pass  so  gross 
an  affront  upon  the  tremendous  Majesty  of  Heaven,  the  im- 
probability that  God  should  delegate  the  Mediator  of  a  most 
important  Covenant  to  be  proposed  to  all  mankind,  without 
enabling  him  to  give  them  clear,  and,  in  reason,  indisputable 
proof  of  the  divine  authority  of  his  mission,  must  ever  infinitely 
outweigh  the  aggregate  sum  of  all  the  probabilities,  which  can 
be  accumulated  in  the  opposite  scale  of  the  balance.  And  to 
conclude,  I  presume  it  will  not  be  denied,  that  the  authenticity 
and  celestial  origin  of  any  thing  pretending  to  be  a  Divine  Re- 
velation, before  it  has  any  claims  upon  our  faith,  ought  to  be 
made  clear  beyond  all  reasonable  doubt;  otherwise,  it  can  have 
no  just  claims  to  a  right  to  influence  our  conduct. 

As  for  the  opinions  and  the  arguments  contained  in  this  vo- 
lume, I  have  but  trembling  hopes  that  they  will  meet  with  fa- 
vour, merely  because  the  author  is  sincere,  and  wishes  to  do 
right.  Conscious  that  I  make  a  perilous  attempt,  in  daring  to 
defend  myself  by  attacking  ancient  error,  supported  by  multi- 
tudes, with  no  other  seconds  besides  Truth  and  Reason,  it  would 
be  bootless  for  me  to  ask  indulgence  for  them  on  account  of  my 
good  intentions ;  and  as  they  can  derive  no  credit  from  the  au- 
thority of  the  writer,  I  am  sensible  they  must  fall  by  their  own 
weakness,  or  stand  by  their  own  strength.  I  must  leave  them 
therefore  to  their  fate ;  and  I  can  cheerfully  do  it,  without  fear 
for  the  issue,  if  the  Reader  will  only  be  candid,  and  will  com- 
ply with  my  earnest  request — "  first  to  understand,  and  then 
judge." 

Before  I  conclude  these  prefatory  remarks,  I  would  ob- 
serve, that  as  the  contents  of  this  volume  will  be  petfectlv  no- 
vel to  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  out  of  a  thousand,  it  is  but 
justice  to  the  public,  and  to  myself,  to  avow,  that  I  do  not  claim 
to  have  originated  all  the  arguments  advanced  in  this  Book. — 
A  very  considerable  portion  of  them  were  selected  and  derived 
from  ancient  and  curious  Jewish  Tracts,  translated  from  Chaldee 
into  Latin,  very  little  known  even  in  Europe,  and  not  at  all 
known  there  to  any,  but  the  curious  and  inquisitive.  And  I  rea- 
sonably hope,  that  discerning  men  will  be  much  more  disposed 
to  weigh  with  candour  the  arguments  herein  offered,  when  they 
consider,  that  they  are,  in  many  instances,  the  reasonings  of 
learned,  ancient,  and  venerable  men,  who,  in  times  when  the  in- 


XIX 

quisition  was  in  vigour,  suffered  under  the  most  bloody  oppres- 
sion, and  whose  writings  were  cautiously  preserved,  and  secret- 
ly handed  down  to  the  seventeenth  century  in  Manuscript,  as  the 
printing  of  them  would  assuredly  have  brought  all  concerned  to 
the  stake.  Some  few  other  arguments  were  derived  from  other 
authors,  and  were  taken  from  works  not  so  much  known  as  I 
hope  they  will  be. 

Finally,  I  commit  my  work  to  the  discretion  of  the  good 
sense  of  the  reader,  believing  that  if  he  is  not  convinced,  he 
will,  at  least,  be  interested;  and  hoping  that  he  will  discover  from, 
the  complexion  of  the  Book  (what  my  own  heart  bears  witness 
to)  that  the  Author  is  a  sincere  inquirer  after  truth,  and  per- 
fectly willing  to  be  convinced  that  he  is  in  an  error,  by  any  one 
who  can  remove  the  difficulties,  and  refute  the  arguments,  now 
laid  by  him  before  the  public,  with  deference  and  respect. 


THE 

GROUNDS  OF  CHRISTIANITY  EXAMINED, 

BY  COMPARING  THE 

NEW  TESTAMENT  WITH  THE  OLD. 


CHAPTER  I. 

CHRISTIANITY  is  founded  on  Judaism,  and  the  New  Tes- 
tament upon  the  Old  ;  and  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  per- 
son said  in  the  New  Testament  to  be  promised  in  the  Old, 
under  the  character  and  name  of  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews, 
and  who,  as  such  only,  claims  the  obedience,  and  submission 
of  the  World.  Accordingly  it  is  the  Design  of  the  Authors 
of  the  New,  to  prove  Christianity  from  the  Old  Testament; 
which  is  said  Jo.  5 :  39,  to  contain  the  words  of  Eternal 
Life  :  and  it  represents  Jesus  and  his  Apostles,  as  fulfilling 
by  their  Mission,  Doctrines,  and  Works,  the  Predictions  of 
the  Prophets  and  the  Law  :  which  last,  is  said  to  prophesy 
of,  or  to  typify  Christianity. 

Matthew,  for  example,  proves  several  parts  of  Chris- 
tianity from  the  Old  Testament,  either  by  asserting 
them  to  be  things  foretold  therein  as  to  come  to  pass  un- 
der the  Gospel  Dispensation  ;  or  to  be  founded  on  the  no- 
tions of  the  Old  Testament. 

Thus  he  proves  Mary's  being  with  child  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  the  Angel's  telling  her  "  she  shall  briny 
forth  a  Son,  and  call  his  name  Jesus,"  and  the  other  circum- 
stances attending  his  miraculous  birth ;  Jesus's  birth  at 
Bethlehem  ;  his  Flight  into  Egypt ;  the  slaughter  of  the 
Infants  ;  Jesus  dwelling  at  Nazareth  and  at  Capernaum,  in 
the  borders  of  Zabulon,  and  Napthali ;  his  casting  out  De- 
vils, and  healing  the  sick ;  his  eating  with  Publicans  and 
sinners  :  his  speaking  in  Parables  that  the  Jews  might  not 
understand  him  ;  his  sending  his  Disciples  to  fetch  an  ass 
and  a  colt ;  the  Children's  crying  in  the  Temple  ;  the  Re- 
surrection of  Jesus  from  theDead;  Jesus's  being  betrayed  by 


Judas,  and  Judas's  returning  back  the  thirty  Pieces  of  Sil- 
ver, and  the  Priest's  buying  the  Potters'  Field  with  them ; 
and  his  hanging  himself,  &c.  &c.  All  these  events,  and 
many  more  are  said  to  be  fulfillments  of  the  Prophecies  of 
the  Old  Testament,  see  Mat.  1,  2,  and  4  chapters,  and  ch. 
8,  v.  16,  17,  and  ch.  9  ;  11,  13,  and  ch.  18  ;  13,  ch.  21  ; 
2—7,  15,  16,  ch.  22  ;  31, 32,  ch.  26  ;  54,  56,  ch.  27  ;  5—10. 

Jesus  himself  is  represented  as  proving  the  Truth  of 
Christianity  thus.  He  joining  himself  to  two  of  his  Dis- 
ciples, (Luke  28 :  15 — 22)  after  his  resurrection,  who  knew 
him  not,  and  complaining  of  their  mistake  about  his  per- 
son, whom  they  now  took  not  to  be  the  Messiah,  because 
he  had  been  condemned  to  Death,  and  crucified  ;  he  ob- 
serving their  disbelief  of  his  resurrection,  which  had  been 
reported  to  them  by  "  certain  women  of  their  acquaintance," 
upon  the  credit  of  the  affirmation  of  angels,  said  unto 
them  "  O  Fools,  and  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the 
Prophets  have  spoken.  Ought  not  Christ  (i.  e.  the  Mes- 
siah) to  have  suffered  these  things,  and  to  enter  into  his 
Glory  ?  and  beginning  at  Moses,  and  all  the  Prophets  he 
expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures  the  things  con- 
cerning himself." 

Again  he  discoursed  to  all  his  Disciples,  putting  them 
in  mind,  that  before  his  Death,  he  told  them  (Luke  24 — 
44,  46,  47,)  that  "  all  things  must  be  fulfilled  which  were 
written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  Prophets,  and  in 
the  Psalms  concerning  him ;"  adding,  "  thus  it  is  written, 
and  thus  it  behoveth  Christ  (L  e.  the  Messiah)  to  suffer, 
and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day  ;  and  that  repen- 
tance, and  remission  of  sins  shpuld  be  preached  in  his  name, 
beginning  at  Jerusalem." 

When  the  People  of  several  Nations,  Acts  2  :  12,  were 
amazed  at  the  Apostles  speaking  in  their  several  tongues, 
and  when  many  mocked  the  Apostles,  saying  they  were 
full  of  new  wine,  Peter  makes  a  speech  in  public, 
wherein,  after  saying  they  were  not  drunk,  because  it  was 
but  the  third  hour  of  the  day,  he  endeavours  to  show  them, 
that  this  was  spoken  of  by  the  Prophet  Joel,  and  he  con- 
cludes with  proving  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  from  the 
Book  of  Psalms. 

Peter  and  John  tell  the  people  assembled  at  the  Tern- 


pie,  "  that  God  had  showed  by  the  mouth  of  all  his  Pro- 
phets, that  Christ  should  suffer." — Acts  3:  18. 

Peter  to  justify  his  preaching  to  the  Gentiles,  concludes 
his  Discourses  with  saying,  Acts  10,  43—"  To  Jesus  gave 
all  the  Prophets  witness  that  through  his  name  whosoever 
(i.  e.  Jew  or  Gentile)  belie veth  in  him,  shall  receive  remis- 
sion of  sins." 

Paul  also  endeavours  to  prove  to  the  Jews  in  the  Syna- 
gogue of  Antioch,  (Ib.  v.  13,)  that  the  History  of  Jesus 
was  contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  he,  and  Bar- 
nabas were  commanded  in  the  Old  Testament  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  Gentiles. 

On  the  occasion  of  a  dispute  among  the  Christians  whe- 
ther the  Gentile  Converts  were  to  be  circumcised  after  the 
Law  of  Moses,  and  to  observe  the  Law,  we  find,  that  after 
much  disputing,  the  point  was  settled  by  James  by  quota- 
tion from  Amos. 

The  Bereans  are  highly  extolled  (Acts  17:  11,)  for 
searching  the  Scriptures,  i.  e.  the  Old  Testament  dailyt  in 
order  to  find  out  whether  the  things  preached  to  them  by 
the  Apostles,  were  so,  or  no  ;  who  if  they  had  not  proved 
these  things,  i.  e.  Christianity  from  the  Old  Testament, 
ought,  according  to  their  own  principles,  to  have  been  re- 
jected by  the  Bereans,  as  teachers  of  false  Doctrine. 

Paul,  when  accused  before  Agrippa  by  the  Jews,  said 
(Acts  26:  6,) — "  I  stand,  and  am  judged  for  the  hope  of 
the  promise  made  of  God  unto  our  Fathers" — i.  e.  for 
teaching  Christianity,  or  the  true  Doctrine  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  to  this  accusation  he  pleads  guilty,  by  declaring 
in  the  fullest  manner,  that  he  taught  nothing  but  the  Doc- 
trines of  the  Old  Testament.  Having,  therefore,  says  he, 
obtained  help  of  God,  I  continue  unto  this  day,  witnessing 
both  to  small  and  great,  saying  none  other  thinys  than  those, 
which  the  Prophets  and  Moses  did  say  should  come,  that  the 
Christ  should  suffer,  and  that  he  should  be  the  jirst  who 
should  rise  from  tJie  Dead,  and  should  show  light  unto  the 
people  and  unto  the  Gentiles." 

The  author  of  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Cor.,  says,  15 
ch.  v.  4,  that  "  Jesus  rose  again  from  the  dead  the  third  day 


accroding  to  the  Scriptures," — that  is  according  to  the  Old 
Testament ;  and  he  is  supposed  to  ground  this  on  the  his- 
tory of  the  Prophet  Jonas,  who  was  three  days  and  three 
nights  in  the  fish's  belly,  though  the  cases  do  not  seem 
to  be  parallel,  for  Jesus  being  buried  on  Friday  evening, 
and  rising  on  Sunday  morning,  was  in  the  tomb  but  one  day 
and  two  nights. 

But  most  singular  is  the  argument  of  the  Apostle  Paul 
(in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians)  to  prove  Christianity  from 
the  Old  Testament.  "Tell  me,"  says  he  (Gal.  4.  21,)  "  ye 
that  desire  to  be  under  the  Law,  do  ye  not  hear  the  Law  ? 
For  it  is  written,  that  Abraham  had  two  Sons,  the  one  by 
a  bond-maid,  the  other  by  a  free-woman.  But  he  who 
was  of  the  bond-woman,  was  born  after  the  flesh  ;  but  he 
who  was  of  the  free- woman,  was  by  promise.  Which  things 
are  an  Allegory.  For  these  are  the  two  Covenants,  the  one 
from  Mount  Sinai  which  gendereth  to  bondage,  which  is 
Agar.  But  this  Agar  is  Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  an- 
swereth  to  Jerusalem  that  now  is,  and  is  in  bondage  with 
her  Children.  But  Jerusalem  which  is  above  is  free,  which 
is  the  Mother  of  us  all.  For  it  is  written  (Isaiah  54 — 1,) 
"  Rejoice  thou  Barren  that  bearest  not,  break  forth,  and 
cry  thou  that  travailest  not,  for  the  desolate  hath  many 
more  children  than  she  which  hath  an  husband."  Now  we 
Brethren,  as  Isaac  was,  are  children  of  the  Promise.  But 
as  then  he  that  was  born  after  the  flesh  persecuted  him 
that  was  born  after  the  spirit,  even  so  it  is  now.  But  what 
saith  the  Scripture  (Gen.  21,  v.  10,  12,)  cast  out  the  bond- 
woman and  her  son,  for  the  son  of  the  bond-woman  shall 
not  be  heir  with  the  Son  of  the  free- woman.  So  then  Bre- 
thren we  are  not  the  children  of  the  bond-woman,  but  of 
the  free.  Stand  fast  therefore  in  the  Liberty  wherewith 
Christ  hath  made  us  free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with 
the  yoke  of  bondage." 

In  fine,  the  Author  of  these  Epistles  reasons  in  the 
same  singular  manner  from  the  Old  Testament  throughout ; 
which  is,  according  to  him,  (2  Tim.  iii,  15,)  "able  to  make 
men  wise  unto  Salvation  ;"  asserting  himself  and  others  to 
be  ministers,  of  the  New  Testament,  as  being  ministers, 
not  of  "  the  letter"  but  of  "  the  Spirit,"  (2  Cor.  iii,  6. ) 
That  is,  of  the  Old  Testament,  spiritually  understood  ; 
and  endeavouring  to  prove,  especially  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  that  Christianity  was  veiled  and  con- 


tained  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  was  implied  in  the 
Jewish  History  and  Law,  both  which  he  considers  as  Types 
and  Shadows  of  Christianity. 


CHAPTER  II. 

How  Christianity  depends  on  the  Old  Testament,  or 
what  proofs  are  to  be  met  with  therein  in  behalf  of  Chris- 
tianity, are  the  subjects  of  almost  all  the  numerous  Books 
written  by  Divines,  and  other  Apologists  for  Christianity; 
but  the  chief,  and  principal,  of  these  proofs  may  be  justly 
supposed  to  be  urged  in  the  New  Testament  itself,  by  the 
Authors  thereof ;  who  relate  the  History  of  the  first  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel,  and  profess  themselves  to  be  Apostles 
of  Jesus,  or  companions  of  the  Apostles. 

Some  of  these  proofs,  as  a  specimen,  have  been  already 
adduced.  And  if  they  are  valid  proofs,  then  is  Christianity 
strongly  and  invincibly  established  on  its  true  foundations. 

It  is  established  upon  its  true  foundations,  because  Jesus 
and  his  Apostles  did,  as  we  have  seen,  ground  Christianity 
on  those  proofs  ;  and  it  is  strongly,  and  invincibly  esta- 
blished on  those  foundations  ;  because  a  proof  drawn  from 
an  inspired  Book  is  perfectly  conclusive.  And  Prophecies 
delivered  in  an  inspired  Book,  are,  when  fulfilled,  such  as 
may  be  justly  deemed  sure,  and  demonstrative  proof;  and 
which  Peter  (2  Peter  i,  19,)  prefers  as  an  argument  for  the 
truth  of  Christianity,  to  that  miraculous  attestation 
(whereof  he  and  two  other  Apostles  are  said  to  have  been 
witnesses,)  given  by  God  himself  to  the  Mission  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth. — His  argument  appears  to  be  as  follows  : 
"Laying  this  foundation,  that  Prophecy  proceeds  from  the 
Holy  Spirit,  it  is  a  stronger  argument  than  a  miracle, 
which  depends  upon  external  evidence,  and  testimony." 
And  this  opinion  of  Peter  is  corroborated  by  the  words 
of  Jesus  himself,  who,  in  Mat.  xxiv,  23,  24.  Mark  xiii, 
21,  22,  affirms,  that  miracles  wrought  in  conjirmation  of  a 
pretender's  being  the  Messiah  are  not  to  be  considered  as 


proof  of  his  being  so  :  "  though  they  show  great  signs  and 
wonders,  believe  it  not,"  is  his  command  to  his  Disciples. 

Besides,  Prophecies  fulfilled  seem  the  most  proper  of 
all  arguments  to  evince  the  truth  of  a  New  Revelation, 
which  is  designed  to  be  universally  promulgated  to  men. 
For  a  man  who  has  the  Old  Testament  put  into  his  hands, 
which  contains  Prophecies,  and  the  New  Testament  after- 
wards, which  is  said  to  contain  their  completions,  and  is 
once  satisfied,"  as  he  may  be  with  the  greatest  ease,  that 
the  Old  Testament  existed  before  the  New,  may  have  a 
complete  internal,  Divine  demonstration  of  the  Truth  of 
Christianity,  without  long,  and  laborious  enquiries.  Where- 
as, arguments  of  another  nature,  such,  for  instance,  as  re- 
late to  the  authority  and  genuineness  of  the  Books,  and  the 
Persons,  and  Characters  of  Authors,  and  witnesses,  require 
more  application  and  understanding  than  fall  to  the 
share  of  the  bulk  of  mankind  ;  or  else  are  very  precarious 
in  themselves,  since  we  know  that  in  the  first  centuries 
there  were  numberless  forged  Gospels,  and  Apocryphal 
writings  imposed  upon  the  credulous  as  apostolic,  and 
authentic  ;  and  there  were  in  the  Apostles'  times,  as  many, 
and  as  great  Heresies,  and  Schisms  as,  perhaps,  have  been 
since  in  any  age  of  the  Church.  So  that,  setting  aside  the 
before  mentioned  internal  proofs  from  prophecy,  (which 
were  the  Apostles'  proofs,  and  in  their  nature  sufficient  of 
themselves)  we  should  have  no  certain  proof  at  all  for  the 
Religion  of  the  New  Testament. 

ON  THE  OTHER  HAND,  if  the  proofs  for  Christianity  from 
the  .Old  Testament  are  not  valid,  if  the  arguments  founded 
on  that  Book  be  not  conclusive,  and  the  Prophecies  cited 
from  thence  be  not  fulfilled,  then  has  Christianity  no  just 
foundation;  for  the  foundation  on  which  Jesus  andhis  Apos- 
tles built  it,  is  then  invalid  and  false.  Nor  can  miracles  said 
to  have  been  wrought  by  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  in  behalf 
of  Christianity,  avail  anything  in  the  case.  For  miracles 
can  never  render  a  foundation  valid,  which  is  in  itself  in- 
valid ;  can  never  make  a.  false  inference  true  ;  can  never 
make  a  prophecy  fulfilled,  which  is  not  fulfilled ;  and  can 
never  designate  a  Messiah,  or  Jesus  for  the  Messiah,  if 
both  are  not  marked  out  in  the  Old  Testament,  no  more 
than  they  could  prove  the  Earth  to  be  the  Sun,  or  a  mouse 
a  lion. 


Besides,  Miracles  said  to  have  been  wrought,  may  be  often 
justly  deemed  false  reports,  when  attributed  to  persons  who 
claim  an  authority  from  the  Old  Testament,  which  they  im- 
pertinently allege  to  support  their  pretensions.  God  can 
never  be  supposed  often  to  permit  miracles  to  be  done  for 
the  confirmation  of  a  false  or  pretended  mission ;  and  if,  at 
any  time,  he  does  permit  miracles  to  be  done  in  confirmation 
of  a  pretended  mission,  we  have  express  directions  from 
the  Old  Testament  (acknowledged  by  Christians  to  be  of 
Divine  authority,  Deut.  xiii.  1,  2,)  not  to  regard  such  mira- 
cles ;  but  to  continue  firm  to  the  antecedent  Revelation 
given  by  Himself,  and  contained  in  the  Old  Testament, 
notwithstanding  any  "signs  or  wonders,"  which,  under 
the  circumstance  of  attesting  something  contrary  to  an  an- 
tecedent Revelation,  we  are  forewarned  of,  as  being  no 
test  of  truth.  No  New  Revelation,  however  supported  by 
miracles,  ought  ever  to  be  received  as  coming  from  God,  un- 
less it  confirms,  or  at  least  does  not  contradict,  the  preceding 
standing  Revelation,  acknowledged  to  be  from  God. 

Accordingly,  we  find  from  the  New  Testament,  that  all 
the  recorded  miracles  of  Jesus  could  not  make  the  Jews 
believe  him  to  be  the  Messiah  when  they  thought  that  he 
did  not  answer  the  description  of  that  character  given  by  the 
Prophets ;  on  the  contrary,  they  procured  him  to  be  cru- 
cified for  pretending  to  be,  what  to  them  he  appeared  plainly 
not  to  be. 

Nor  had  his  miracles  alone  any  effect  on  his  own  bre- 
thren and  kindred,  who  seem  (Mark  vi.  4,  Jo.  vii.  5,)  to 
have  been  more  incredulous  in  him  than  other  Jews.  Nor 
had  they  the  effect  they  are  supposed  to  have  been  fitted  to 
produce,  among  his  immediate  followers  and  Disciples  ; 
some  of  whom  did  not  believe  in  him,  but  deserted  him, 
and  particularly  had  no  faith  in  him,  when  he  spake  of 
his  sufferings  ;  and  thought  that  he  could  not  be  their 
Messiah  when  they  saw  him  suffer,  notwithstanding  his 
miracles,  and  his  declaration  to  them  that  he  was  the 
Messiah.  And  so  rooted  were  the  Jews  in  the  notion 
of  the  Messiah's  being  a  temporal  Prince,  a  conquering 
Pacificator  and  Deliverer,  even  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  and 
the  progress  of  Christianity  grounded  on  the  belief  of  his 
being  the  Messiah,  that  they  have  in  all  times  of  distress 
particularly  in  the  apostolic  era,  in  great  numbers  follow- 
ed imposters  giving  themselves  out  as  the  Messiah,  with 


force,  and  amis,  as  the  way  to  restore  the  kingdom  of 
Israel.  So  that  th«  Jews,  who  it  seems,  mistook  in  this 
most  important  matter,  and  after  the  most  egregious  man- 
ner, the  meaning  of  their  own  Books,  might,  till  they  were- 
set  right  in  their  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
were  convinced  from  thence  that  Jesus  was  the  Messiah, 
might  I  say,  as  justly  reject  Jesus  asserting  his  mission,  and 
Doctrines  with  miracles,  as  they  might  reject  any  other  per- 
son, who  in  virtue  of  miracles,  would  lead  them  inta 
Idolatry,  or  any  other  breach  of  their  law. 

In  fine,  the  miracles  said  to  have  been  wrought  by  Jesus, 
are,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  the  gospel  scheme,  and 
the  words  of  Jesus  himself,  no  absolute  proof  of  his  being 
the  Messiah,  or  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  ;  and  Jesus  laid 
no  great  stress  upon  them  as  proving  doctrines,  for  he  fore- 
warned his  disciples,  that  "  signs  and  wonders"  would 
be  performed,  so  great  and  stupendous,  as  to  deceive,  if 
possible,  the  very  elect,  and  bids  them  not  to  give  any  heed 
to  them.* 


*  There  are  a  great  many  persons  who  conceive  that  Christianity  is 
sufficiently  proved  to  be  true,  if  the  miracles  of  Jesus  are  true  ;  even 
•without  any  regard  to  the  prophecies,  so  often  appealed  to  by  him. 
But  supposing  the  miracles  to  be  true  ;  yet  no  miracles  can  prove 
that  which  is  false  in  itself  to  be  true.  If  therefore  Jesus  be  not  foretold  as 
the  Messiah  in  the  Old  Testament,  no  miracles  can  prove  Jesus  to 
be  the  Messiah  foretold,  nay  it  is  a  stronger  argument  to  prove  Jesus  to 
be  a  false  pretender,  that  he  appealed  to  prophecies  as  relating  to  him, 
when  in  fact  they  had  no  relation  whatever  to  him  ,-  and  by  that 
means  imposed  upon  the  ignorant  ;  than  it  would  be  that  he  cams 
from  God,  merely  because  he  worked  miracles  ;  for  "  Iblse  Christt 
and  false  prophets  may  arise,  and  may  show  tuch  great  SIGNS  AND  WON- 
DERS as  to  deceive,  if  it  were  possible,  the  very  elect."  Mat.  xxiv. 
24.  Yet  no  Christian  would  allow  it  to  be  argued  from  thence,  thai 
ihose  false  Christs  were  true  ones  ;  nor  would  any  one  conclude,  that 
a  man  came  from  God,  (notwithstanding  any  miracles  he  might  do) 
jf  he  appealed  to  Scripture  for  that  which  is  no  where  in  it.  In  fine,  if 
miracles  would  prove  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  so  also  they  would 
prove  the  Messiahship  of  the  false  Christs,  and  false  prophets  spoken 
of  above.  Nay  more,  they  would  demonstrate  the  Divine  mission  of 
Antichrist  himself',  who,  according  to  the  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians, 
(•J  Thes.  ch.  ii,  8,  9,  10.)  and  the  Revelations,  ch.  xiii.  13,  14,  was 
to  perform  "  great  signs  and  wonders,"  equal  to  any  wrought  by 
Jftus  ;  for  the  same  Greek  words  are  used  to  express  the  wonderful 
works,  or  "  great  signs  and  wonders"  of  Antichrist,  which  are  else- 
where used  to  express  the  miracles,  or  "  great  signs  and  wonders"  ot 
Jetus  himself, 

It  is  a  striking  circumstance,  that  the  earliest  apologists  foi  Christi- 
anity laid  little  stress  upon  the  miracles  of  its  founder. 


CHAPTER  III. 

HAVING  shewn  from  the  New  Testament,  and  proved 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  the  whole  credit  and  autho- 
rity of  the  Christian  religion,  rests  and  depends  upon 
Jesus'  being  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews  ;  and  having  stated 
the  principles  which  ought  to  govern  the  decision  of  this 
question,  and  established  the  fact,  that  the  pretensions  of 
any  claiming  to  be  considered  as  this  Messiah,  must  be  test- 
ed solely  by  the  coincidence  of  the  character,  and  circum- 
stances of  the  pretender  with  the  descriptions  given  by 
the  prophets,  as  the  means  by  which  he  may  be  known  to  be 
so.  It  is  proper,  in  order  that  we  may  be  enabled  to  form 
a  correct  opinion,  to  lay  before  the  reader  those  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament  which  contain  the  promise  of  the 
appearing,  and  express  the  characteristics  of  this  '  hope  of 
Israel,'  this  beneficent  Saviour,  and  august  monarch,  in 
whose  time  a  suffering  world,  was,  according  to  the  He- 
brew prophets,  to  become  the  abode  of  happy  beings. 

Justin  Martyr,  in  his  apology,  is  very  shy  of  appealing  to  the  mira- 
cles of  Jesus  in  confirmation  of  his  pretensiens  ;  he  lays  no  stress  upon 
them,  but  relies  entirely  upon  the  prophecie*  he  quotes  as  in  his  favour. 
Jerom,  in  his  comment  on  the  eighty-first  Psalm,  assures  us,  "  that 
the  performance  of  miracles  was  no  extraordinary  thing  ;  and  that  it 
was  no  more  than  what  Appollonius  and  Apulius,  and  innumerable  im- 
posters  had  done  before." 

Lactantius  saw  so  little  force  in  the  miracles  of  Christ  exclusive  of 
the  prophecies,  that  he  does  not  hesitate  to  affirm  their  utter  inability 
to  support  the  Christian  religion  iy  themselves.  [Lactan.  Div.  Inst.  L. 

T.  C.  3-3 

Celsus  observing  upon  the  words  of  Jesus,  that  "  false  prophets,  and 
false  Christs  shall  arise,  and  show  great  signs  and  wonders  :"  sneer- 
inglj  observes, "  A  fine  thing  truly  !  that  miracles  done  by  him  should 
prove  him  to  be  a  God,  and  when  done  by  others  should  demonstrate 
them  to  be  false  prophets  and  impostors." 

Tertullian,  on  the  words  of  Jesus,  here  referred  to  by  Celsus,  says 
as  follows  :  "  Christ  foretelling,  that  many  impostors  should  come  and 
perform  many  wonders,  shews,  that  our  faith  cannot  without  great  te- 
merity be  founded  on  miracles,  since  they  were  so  early  wrought  by 
false  Christians  themselves."  [Tertul.  in  Marc.  L.  ii.  s.  3.] 

Indeed  miracles  in  the  two  first  centuries  were  allowed  very  little 
weight  in  proving  doctrines.  Since  the  Christians  did  dot  deny,  that 
the  heathens  performed  miracles  in  behalf  of  their  gods,  and  that  the 
heretics  performed  them  as  well  as  the  orthodox.  This  accounts  for 
the  perfect  indifference  of  the  heathens  to  the  miracles  said  to  hava 


10 

Leaving  out  for  the  present  the  consideration  of  the 
Shiloh  mentioned  in  Gen.  xlix.  the  first  prophecy  we  meet 
with,  supposed  to  relate  to  this  great  character,  is  contain- 
ed in  Num.  xxiv.  17,  19.  "  There  shall  come  a  star  out 
of  Jacob,  and  a  sceptre  shall  rise  out  of  Israel,  and  shall 
smite  the  corners  of  Moab,  and  destroy  the  children  of 
Seth."  Geddes  interprets  the  latter  clause — "  shall  des- 
troy the  sons  of  Sedition  ;"  but  it  probably  means,  accord- 
ing to  the  common  interpretation,  that  this  monarch  was  to 
govern  the  whole  race  of  men,  i.  e.  the  children  of  Seth, 
for  Noah,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  was  descended 
from  him,  and  of  the  posterity  of  Noah,  was  the  whole 
earth  overspread.  And  in  verse  19,  it  is  added,  "  out  of 
Jocob  shall  come  he  that  shall  have  dominion"* 

God  says  to  David,  2  Sam.  vii.  12.  "  And  when  thy  days 
shall  be  fulfilled,  and  thou  shall  sleep  with  thy  fathers,  I 
will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee,  which  shall  proceed  out  of 
thy  bowels ;  and  I  will  establish  his  kingdom.  He  shall 
build  a  house  for  my  name,  and  I  will  establish  the  throne 
of  his  kingdom  for  ever.  I  will  be  his  Father,  and  he 
shall  be  my  Son.  If  he  commit  iniquity,  I  will  chasten  him 


been  performed  by  the  founders  of  Christianity.  Hierocles  speaks 
with  great  contempt  of  what  he  calls  "  the  little  tricks  of  Jesus-"  And 
Origen.  in  his  reply  toCelsus,  waves  the  consideration  ofthe  Christian 
miracles,  "  for  (says  he)  the  very  mention  of  these  things  sets  you 
Heathens  upon  the  broad'  grin."  Indeed,  that  they  laughed  very  hear- 
tily at  what  in  the  eighteenth  century  is  read  with  a  grave  face,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  few  fragments  of  their  works  written  against  Christian- 
ity which  have  escaped  the  burning  zeal  of  the  fathers,  and  the 
Christian  emperors  ;  who  piously  sought  for,  and  burned  up  these 
mischevons  volumes  to  prevent  their  doing  mischief  to  posterity.  This 
conduct  of  theirs  is  very  suspicious,  "Why  burn  writings  they  could 
so  triumphantly  refute,  if  they  were  refutable  ?  They  should  hare 
remembered  the  just  reflection  of  Arnobius,  their  own  apolegist, 
against  the  heathens,  who  were  for  abolishing  at  once  such  writings 
as  promoted  Christianity — "  Inter  cipere  scripta  et  publicatam  velle 
submergere  lectionem,  non  est  Deos  defendere,  sed  veritatis  testiftca- 
tionem  timere."  [Arnob.  contra  Gentes.  Liber  iii.] 

*  Before  going  into  the  consideration  of  the  following  prophecies, 
the  author  would  warn  the  reader  to  bear  in  mind,  that  whether  these 
prophecies  ever  will  be  fulfilled  is  a  question  of  no  import  in  the  world 
to  the  question  under  consideration,  which  is — whether  they  have  been 
fulfilled  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  who 
is  asserted  by  Christians  to  he  the  person  foretold  in  these  prophecies, 
and  to  have  fulfilled  their  predictions.  This  question  can  be  easily 
decided,  and  only,  we  think,  by  appealing  to  past  history,  and  to  the 
scenes  passing  around  us,  and  comparing  them  with  these  predictions. 


11 

with  the  rod  of  a  man,  and  with  the  stripes  of  the  children 
of  men,  but  my  mercy  shall  not  depart  from  him,  as  I  took 
it  from  Saul,  whom  I  put  away  before  thee,  and  thy  house, 
and  thy  kingdom  shall  be  established  before  me,  and  thy 
throne  shall  be  established  for  ever."  Mention  is  made  of 
this  promise  in  several  of  the  Psalms,  but  it  certainly  sug- 
gests no  idea  of  such  a  person  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  but 
only  that  of  a  temporal  prince  of  the  posterity  of  David.  It 
implies,  that  his  family  would  never  entirely  fail,  for  though 
it  might  be  severely  punished,  it  would  recover  its  lustre 
again.  And  connecting  this  promise  with  that  of  the  glory 
of  the  nation  in  general,  foretold  in  the  books  of  Moses,  it 
might  be  inferred  by  the  Hebrews  who  believed  them  to  be 
of  Divine  authority/  that  after  long  and  great  calamities 
(the  consequences  of  their  sins,)  the  people  of  Israel 
would  be  restored  to  their  country,  and  attain  the  most 
distinguished  felicity  under  a  prince  of  the  family  of  David. 
This  is  the  subject  of  numberless  prophecies  throughout 
the  Old  Testament. 

Passing  over  all  those  prophecies  in  which  the  national 
glory  is  spoken  of,  without  any  mention  of  a  prince  or  head, 
I  shall  recite,  and  remark  upon  the  most  eminent  of  those 
in  which  mention  is  made  of  any  particular  person,  under 
whom,  or  by  means  of  whom,  the  Israelitish  nation,  it  is 
said,  would  enjoy  the  transcendent  prosperity  elsewhere 
foretold. 

The  second  Psalm  is,  no  doubt,  well  known  to  my  reader, 
and  supposing  it  to  refer  to  the  Messiah,  it  is  evident,  that 
it  describes  him  enthroned  upon  mount  Zion,  the  favorite 
of  God,  and  the  resistless  conqueror  of  his  enemies. 

The  next  prophecy  of  this  distinguished  individual  is  re- 
corded in  Isaiah  ix.  6.  "  Unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto  us 
a  son  is  given,  and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his 
shoulder  :  and  the  Wonderful,  the  Counsellor,  the  mighty 
God,  tiie  everlasting  Father  shall  call  his  name,  the  Prince  of 
Peace."  (For  thus  it  is  pointed  to  be  read  in  the  original 
Hebrew,  and  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  passage,  and  not  as 
in  the  absurd  translation  of  this  verse  in  the  English  ver- 
sion.) "  Of  the  increase  of  his  government  there  shall  be 
no  end,  upon  the  throne  of  David,  and  his  kingdom,  to 
order  it,  and  to  establish  it  with  judgment,  and  with  justice 
from  henceforth  and  for  ever :  the  zeal  of  the  Lord  of* 


12 

Hosts  will  do  this."  Here  again  we  have  a  mighty  mo* 
narch,  sitting  upon  the  throne  of  David,  upon  earth  ;  and 
not  a  spiritual  king  placed  by  idolatrous  superstition  in 
heaven.,  upon  the  throne  of"  the  mighty  God,  the  everlast- 
ing Father." 

The  next  passage  which  comes  under  notice,  is  in  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  Isaiah,  in  which  a  person  is  mentioned, 
under  whom  Israel,  and  the  whole  earth  was  to  enjoy  great 
prosperity  and  felicity.  He  is  described  as  an  upright 
prince,  endued  with  the  spirit  of  God,  under  whose  reign 
there  would  be  universal  peace,  which  was  to  take  place  af- 
ter the  return  of  the  Israelites  from  their  dispersed  state, 
when  the  whole  nation  would  be  united  and  happy. 

"  There  shall  spring  forth  a  rod  from  the  trunk  of  Jesse, 
and  a  scion  from  his  roots  shall  become  friutful,  and  the 
spirit  of  the  Lord  shall  rest  upon  him  ;  the  spirit  of  wis- 
dom, and  understanding ;  the  spirit  of  counsel  and  strength  ; 
the  spirit  of  knowledge,  and  the  fear  of  the  Lord ;  and  he 
shall  be  quick  of  discerment  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord  ;  so 
that  not  according  to  the  sight  of  his  eyes  shall  he  judge, 
nor  according  to  the  hearing  of  the  ears  shall  he  reprove  ; 
but  with  righteousness  shall  he  judge  the  poor,  and  with 
equity  shall  he  work  conviction  on  the  meek  of  the  earth. 
And  he  shall  smite  the  earth  with  the  blast  of  his  mouth; 
and  with  the  breath  of  his  lips  shall  he  slay  the  wicked  one ; 
and  righteousness  shall  be  the  girdle  of  his  loins,  and  faith- 
fulness the  cincture  of  his  reins.  Then  shall  the  wolf  take 
up  his  abode,  with  the  lamb ;  and  the  leopard  shall  lie  down 
with  the  kid ;  and  the  calf,  and  the  young  lion,  and  the  fat- 
ling  shall  come  together,  and  a  little  child  shall  lead  them. 
And  the  heifer,  and  the  she  bear  shall  feed  together.  To- 
gether shall  their  young  ones  lie  down.  And  the  lion  shall 
eat  straw  like  the  ox.  And  the  suckling  shall  play  upon 
the  hole  of  the  asp ;  and  upon  the  den  of  the  basilisk  shall 
the  new  weaned  child  lay  his  hand.  They  shall  not  hurt, 
nor  destroy  in  my  holy  mountain.  For  the  earth  shall  be 
full  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Lord,  as  the  waters  cover  the 
depth  of  the  sea.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day, 
the  root  of  Jesse  which  standeth  for  an  ensign  to  the  people, 
unto  him  shall  the  nations  repair,  and  his  resting  place  shall 
be  glorious." 

As  the  scion  here  spoken  of  is  said  to  spring  from  the 


13 

root  of  Jesse,  it  looks  as  if  it  were  intended  to  intimate,  that 
the  tree  itself  would  be  cut  down,  or  that  the  power  of  Da- 
vid's family  would  be  for  some  time  extinct ;  but  that  it  would 
revive  in  '  the  latter  days.' 

The  same  Prince  is  again  mentioned,  chap,  xxxii.  1, 
3,  where  the  people  are  described  to  be  both  virtuous,  and 
flourishing,  and  to  continue  to  be  so. 

"  Behold  a  King  shall  reign  in  righteousness,  and  Princes 
shall  rule  with  equity ;  and  the  man  shall  be  a  covert  from 
the  storm,  as  a  refuge  from  the  flood,  as  canals  of  waters  in 
a  dry  place,  as  the  shadow  of  a  great  rock  in  a  land  of  faint- 
ing with  heat;  and  him  the  eyes  of  those  that  see  shall  re- 
gard, and  the  ears  of  them  that  hear  shall  harken till 

the  spirit  from  on  high  be  poured  out  upon  us,  and  the  wil- 
derness become  a  fruitful  field,  and  the  fruitful  field  be  es- 
teemed a  forest;  and  judgment  shall  dwell  in  the  wilderness, 
and  in  the  fruitful  field  shall  reside  righteousness,  and  the 
work  of  righteousness  shall  be  peace,  and  the  effect  of 
righteousness  perpetual  quiet,  and  security.  And  my  peo- 
ple shall  dwell  in  a  peaceful  mansion,  and  in  habitations 
secure,  and  in  resting  places  undisturbed." 

The  same  prophet  chap.  Ixii.  1,  speaks  of  a  person  un- 
der the  title  of  "  God's  Servant,"  of  a  meek  disposition, 
raised  up  by  God  to  enlighten  the  world,  even  the  Gentile 
part  of  it ;  to  bring  prisoners  out  of  their  confinement,  and 
to  open  their  eyes  ;  alluding  probably,  to  the  custom  too 
common  in  the  East,  of  sealing  up  the  eyes,  by  sewing  or 
fastening  together  the  eyelids  of  persons,  and  then  impri- 
soning them  for  life.  It  is  doubted  however  whether  the 
Prophet  meant,  or  had  in  view,  in  this  passage,  the  Messiah 
or  his  own  nation. 

"  Behold  my  servant  whom  I  will  uphold,  mine  elect  in 
whom  my  soul  delighteth  ;  I  will  make  my  spirit  rest  upon 
him,  and  he  shall  publish  judgment,  to  the  nations.  He 
shall  not  cry  aloud,  nor  raise  a  clamour,  nor  cause  his  voice 
to  be  heard  in  the  public  places.  The  bruised  reed  shall 
he  not  break,  and  the  dimly  burning  flax  he  shall  not  quench. 
He  shall  publish  judgment  so  as  to  establish  it  perfectly. 
His  force  shall  not  be  abated,  nor  broken,  until  he  has 
firmly  seated  judgment  in  the  Earth,  and  the  distant  na- 
tions shall  earnestly  wait  for  his  Law. 


14 

Thus  saith  the  Lord,  even  Jehovah,  who  created  the 
Heavens,  and  stretched  them  out ;  who  spread  abroad  the 
Earth,  and  the  produce  thereof,  who  giveth  breath  to  the 
people  upon  it,  and  spirit  to  them  that  tread  thereon.  I, 
the  Lord,  have  called  thee  [for  a  righteous  purpose,  and  I 
will  take  hold  of  thy  hand,  and  I  will  preserve  thee :  and  I  will 
give  thee  for  a  covenant  to  the  people,  for  a  light  to  the  na- 
tions ;  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  to  bring  the  captive 
out  of  confinement,  and  from  the  dungeon,  those  that  dwell 
in  darkness.  I  am  Jehovah,  that  is  my  name,  and  my  glory 
will  I  not  give  to  another,  nor  my  praise  to  the  graven 
images.  The  former  predictions,  lo  !  they  are  come  to 
pass,  and  new  events  I  now  declare.  Before  they  spring 
forth,  behold  I  make  them  known  unto  you."  See  also  chap, 
xlix.  1,  12,  and  chap.  liv.  3,  5. 

In  the  3rd  chapter  of  Hosea,  verses  4  and  5  ;  it  is  said 
by  the  Prophet,  that  "  the  sons  of  Israel  shall  abide  many 
days  without  a  King,  and  without  a  Prince,  and  without 
sacrifice,  and  without  a  statue,  and  without  an  Ephod,  and 
without  Teraphim.  Afterward  shall  the  sons  of  Israel  re- 
turn, and  shall  seek  the  Lord  their  God,  and  David  their 
King,  and  shall  fear  the  Lord,  and  his  goodness  in  the  lat- 
ter days." 

Micah  ch.  v.  2,  speaks  of  the  Messiah  thus,  "  And  thou 
Bethlehem  Ephratah,  art  thou  too  little  to  be  among  the 
leaders  of  Judah  ?  Out  of  thee  shall  come  forth  unto  me, 
him  who  is  to  be  ruler  in  Israel ;  and  his  goings  forth  have 
been  from  of  old,  from  the  days  of  hidden  ages.  Therefore 
will  he  (God)  deliver  them  up,  until  the  time  when  she  that 
bringeth  forth,,  hath  brought  forth,  and  until  the  residue  of 
their  brethren  shall  return  together,  with  the  Sons  of  Israel. 
And  he  shall  stand  and  feed  his  flock,  in  the  strength  of 
the  Lord,  in  the  majesty  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God, 
and  they  shall  abide,  for  now  shall  he  be  great  unto  the 
ends  of  the  earth,  and  he  shall  be  Peace." 

Jeremiah  also  speaks  of  the  restoration  of  the  Israelites, 
under  a  Prince  of  the  family  of  David,  chap,  xxiii.  5,  8. 

"  Behold  the  days  are  coming,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I 
will  raise  up  unto  David  a  righteous  branch,  and  a  King 
shall  reign,  and  act  wisely,  and  shall  execute  justice,  and 
judgment  in  the  Earth.  In  his  days  Judah  shall  be  saved, 


15 

and  Israel  shall  dwell  in  security,  and  this  is  the  name  by 
which  Jehovah  shall  call  him,  OUR  RIGHTEOUSNESS."  (Heb.) 
The  same  is  mentioned  chap.  xxx.  8.  9.  "  And  it  shall  be 
in  that  day,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  I  will  break  his  yoke 
from  off  his  neck,  and  his  bands  will  I  burst  asunder,  and 
strangers  shall  no  more  exact  service  of  him ;  but  they 
shall  serve  the  Lord  their  God,  and  David  their  King, 
whom  I  will  raise  up  for  (or  to)  them. — The  voice  of  joy, 
and  the  voice  of  mirth,  the  voice  of  the  Bridegroom,  and 
the  voice  of  the  Bride,  the  voice  of  them  that  say,  Praise 
ye  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  for  the  Lord  is  gracious,  for  his 
mercy  endureth  forever,  of  them  that  bring  praise  to  the  house 
of  the  Lord.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts,  yet  again  shall 
there  be  in  this  place  that  is  desolate  (Jerusalem  and  Pa- 
lestine,) without  man  and  beast,  and  in  all  the  cities  there- 
of, an  habitation  of  shepherds  folding  sheep,  in  the  cities  of 
the  hill  country,  and  in  the  cities  of  the  plain,  and  in  the 
cities  of  the  south,  and  in  the  land  of  Benjamin,  and  in 
the  environs  of  Jerusalem. — Behold  the  days  come,  saith 
the  Lord,  that  I  will  perform  the  good  thing  which  I  have 
spoken  concerning  the  house  of  Israel,  and  concerning  the 
house  of  Judah.  In  those  days,  and  at  that  time,  ( He  that 
readeth,  let  him  observe.}  I  will  cause  to  grow  up  of  the  line  of 
David  a  branch  of  righteousness,  and  he  shall  execute 
judgment  and  justice  in  the  earth.  In  those  days  Judah 
shall  be  saved,  and  Jerusalem  shall  dwell  securely,  and  this 
is  he  whom  Jehovah  shall  call — «  OUR  RIGHTEOUSNESS,' 
(Heb.)  Surely  thus  saith  the  Lord,  there  shall  not  be  a 
failure  in  the  line  of  David,  of  one  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of 
the  house  of  Israel,  neither  shall  there  be  a  failure  in  the 
line  of  the  Priests,  the  Levites,  of  one  to  offer  before  me 
burnt  offerings,  and  to  perform  sacrifice  continually."  See 
ch.  xxxiii.  14.  In  this  place,  the  perpetuity  of  the  tribe  of 
Levi,  as  well  as  that  of  the  house  of  David,  is  foretold.  See 
also  Jer.  ch.  xxx.  9. 

Cotemporary  with  Jeremiah  was  Ezechiel.  He  likewise 
describes  this  happy  state  of  the  Israelites  under  a  king  of 
the  name  of  David,  chap,  xxxiv.  22. 

"  Therefore  will  I  save  my  flock,  and  they  shall  no  more 
be  a  prey  :  and  I  will  judge  between  cattle,  and  cattle,  and 
will  set  up  one  Shepherd  over  them,  and  he  shall  feed  them, 
even  my  servant  David.  He  shall  feed  them,  and  he  shall 
be  their  Shepherd,  and  I,  the  Lord,  will  be  their  God,  and 


16 

my  servant  David  a  Prince  among  them.  I,  the  Lord,  have 
spoken  it,  and  I  will  make  with  them  a  covenant  of  Peace, 
and  will  cause  the  evil  beasts  to  cease  out  of  the  land  ; 
and  they  shall  dwell  safely  in  the  wilderness,  and  sleep  in 
the  woods  $  and  I  will  make  them,  and  the  places  round 
about  my  hill,  a  blessing.  And  I  will  cause  the  shower  to 
come  down  in  the  season.  There  shall  be  showers  of 
blessing  ;  and  the  tree  of  the  field  shall  yield  her  fruit :  and 
the  earth  shall  yield  her  increase  ;  and  they  shall  be  safe  in. 
their  land  ;  and  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord." 

In  another  passage,  this  Prophet  says,  that  the  two  na- 
tions, Israel  and  Judah,  shall  have  one  King,  and  that  this 
King  shall  be  named  David,  who  shall  reign  forever,  chap, 
xxxvii.  21,  28.  "  Say  unto  them,  thus  saith  the  Lord 
God,  behold  I  will  take  the  children  of  Israel  from  among 
the  Heathen  whither  they  be  gone,  and  will  gather  them  on 
every  side,  and  bring  them  into  their  own  land.  And  I  will 
make  them  one  nation  in  the  land,  upon  the  mountains  of 
Israel,  and  one  King  shall  be  King  to  them  all,  and  they 
shall  be  no  more  two  nations,  neither  shall  they  be  divided  into 
two  kingdoms  any  more  at  all.  Neither  shall  they  defile 
themselves  any  more  with  their  Idols,  nor  with  their  detes- 
table things,  nor  with  any  of  their  transgressions.  But  I  will 
save  them  out  of  all  their  dwelling  places  wherein  they  have 
sinned,  and  will  cleanse  them,  so  shall  they  be  my  people, 
and  I  will  be  their  God.  And  David  my  servant  shall 
be  King  over  them,  and  there  shall  be  one  shepherd.  They 
shall  also  walk  in  my  judgments,  and  observe  my  statutes  and 
do  them.  And  they  shall  dwell  in  the  land  that  I  have  given 
unto  Jacob  my  servant,  wherein  your  fathers  have  dwelt, 
and  they  shall  dwell  therein,  even  they,  and  their  chil- 
dren, and  their  children's  children  forever.  And  my  servant 
David  shall  be  their  Prince  forever.  Moreover  I  will  make 
a  covenant  of  peace  with  them.  It  shall  be  an  everlasting 
covenant  with  them,  and  I  will  place  them,  and  multiply 
them,  and  will  set  my  sanctuary  in  the  midst  of  them,  for 
evermore.  My  tabernacle  also  shall  be  with  them,  and  I 
will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people,  and  the 
heathen  shall  know,  that  I  the  Lord  do  sanctify  Israel,  when 
my  sanctuary  shall  be  in  the  midst  of  them  for  evermore." 

The  natural  construction  of  this  seems  to  be  this,  "  that 
a  descendant  of  David,  called  by  that  name,  should  reign 
aver  the  Israelites  forever." 


17 

In  the  very  circumstantial  description  which  Ezechiel 
gives  of  the  state  of  the  Israelites  in  their  own  country,  yet 
expected  by  the  Jews,  he  speaks  of  the  Prince,  and  the  por- 
tion assigned  him,  chap  xlv.  78.  And  in  his  description  of 
the  temple  service,  he  moreover  speaks  of  the  gate,  by  which 
the  prince  is  to  enter  into  it  See  chap.  xlvi.  1,  2. 

The  next,  and  last  passage  I  shall  quote,  is  from  the 
Book  of  Daniel,  who,  in  the  first  year  of  Belshaz&ar  king 
of  Babylon,  had  a  vision  of  four  beasts,  representing  the 
four  great  Empires.  At  the  close  of  his  account  of  which 
he  speaks  of  "  one  like  the  son  of  man"  being  brought  into 
the  presence  of  God,  and  receiving  from  the  Eternal  an  ever- 
lasting kingdom,  chap.  vii.  13.  "I  saw  in  the  night  visions, 
and  behold  one  like  the  son  of  man  came  with  the  clouds  of 
heaven,  and  come  to  the  ancient  of  days  ;  and  they  brought 
him  near  before  him.  And  there  was  given  him  dominion, 
and  Glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people,  nations,  and  lan- 
guages should  serve  him.  His  dominion  is  an  everlasting  do- 
minion, which  shall  not  pass  away,  and  his  kingdom  that 
which  shall  not  be  destroyed." 

I  have  now  gone  through  the  prophecies  which  are  allow- 
ed both  by  Jews  and  Christians  to  relate  to  one  person  whom 
they  call  the  Messiah.  It  must  be  evident  from  all  these 
passages,  that  the  characteristics  of  this,  to  both  parties, 
highly  interesting  personage,  as  described  by  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  are  these  : 

1.  That  he  was  to  be  a  just,  beneficent,  wise,  and  mighty 
monarch,  raised  up  and  upheld,  and  established  by  God,  to 
be  the  means  of  promoting  universal  peace,  and  happiness. 
That  Israel  should  be  gathered  to  him,  and  established  in 
their  own  land  ;  which  was  to  be  the  seat  of  dominion,  and 
the  centre  of  union,  and  of  worship  to  all  the  people,  and 
nations  of  the  earth  ;  who  were  to  live  under  the  govern- 
ment, and  receive,  and  obey  the  laws  of  this  beneficent 
Prince  ;  and  enjoy  unspeakable  felicities  on  the  earth,  then 
changed  to  an  universal  paradise.  And  for  all  this  happiness, 
they  were  to  worship  and  glorify  the   true  God  only,  and 
glorify  Jehovah,  and  give  thanks  to  Him,  "  because  He  is 
good,  and  his  mercy  endureth  forever." 

2.  That  this  prince  was  to  be  of  the  line  of  David,  and 
as  it  should  seem,  called  by  that  name,  and  was  to  reign  on 
his  throne  in  Jerusalem. 


18 

3.  That  according  to  Micah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezechiel, 
(see  the  quotations)  his  manifestation,  and  the  restoration  of 
Israel  were  to  be  contemporaneous.  See  Hosea,  chap.  iii.  4, 
5.  And  from  Jeremiah  xxxiii.  15,  and  from  Micah  v.  2,  it 
should  seem  also,  that  he  was  not  to  be  born,  till  the  time  of 
that  restoration  should  be  nearly  arrived. 

The  Prophecies  concerning  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews  be- 
ing now  laid  before  the  reader,  we  have  only  to  apply  these 
descriptions  to  know  whether  an  individual  be  their  Messiah 
or  not.  For,  (according  to  the  principles  laid  down,  and 
established  in  the  preceding  chapter)  where  the  foregoing 
characteristics  given  by  the  prophets  do  centre  and  agree,  that 
person  is  the  Messiah  foretold :  But  where  they  are  not  found 
in  any  one  claiming  that  character,  miracles  are  nothing  to 
the  purpose,  and  nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  he  has 
no  right  to  be  considered  as  such ;  and  could  he  with  a  word 
turn  the  sun  black  in  the  face,  in  proof  of  his  being  the 
Messiah,  he  is  nevertheless  not  to  be  regarded — for,  whether 
such  a  person  has  yet  appeared,  can  certainly  only  be  known 
by  considering  whether  the  world  has  ever  yet  seen  such  a 
person  as  this  Messiah  of  the  Hebrew  Prophets. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

HAD  Jesus  of  Nazareth  come  into  the  world,  merely,  as  a 
person  sent  with  a  revelation  from  God,  he  would  have  had 
a  right  to  be  attended  to,  and  tried  upon  that  ground ;  and 
if  his  doctrines  and  precepts  were  consistent  with  reason, 
consistent  with  one  another,  and  with  prior  revelations, 
really  such,  and  all  tending  to  the  honor  of  God,  and  the 
good  of  men,  his  miracles,  with  these  circumstances,  ought 
to  have  determined  men  to  believe  in  him. 

But  since  he  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews, 
foretold  by  their  Prophets,  it  is  requisite,  that  that  claim 
should  be  made  out ;  and  it  is  reasonable  in  itself,  and  just 
to  him,  and  necessary  to  all  those  who  will  not  take  their 
religion  upon  trust,  that  he  should  be  tried,  by  examining 
whether  this  claim  can  be  made  out  or  not.  The  argument 
from  prophecy  becomes  necessary  to  establish  the  claim  of 


19 

the  Gospel ;  and  as  truth  is  consistent  with  itself,  so  this 
claim  must  be  true,  or  it  destroys  all  others. 

Besides,  what  notions  of  common  morality  must  he  have, 
who  pretends  to  come  from  God,  and  declares  (Jo.  v.  37,) 
"  that  the  Scriptures  testify  of  him,"  if  in  fact  the  Scrip- 
tures do  not  testify  of  him  ?  What  honesty  or  sincerity 
could  he  have,  who  could  "  begin  at  Moses  and  all  the  Pro- 
phets, and  expound  unto  his  disciples  in  all  the  Scriptures 
the  things  concerning  himself,"  if  neither  Moses  nor  the 
Prophets  ever  spake  a  word  about  him  ?  The  prophets 
therefore  must  decide  this  question,  and  the  foundation  of 
Christianity  must  be  laid  upon  them  ;  or  else,  to  avoid  one  dif- 
ficulty, Christians  will  be  forced  into  such  absurdities,  as 
no  man  can  palliate,  much  less  can  extricate  himself  out  of. 

Furthermore,  this  claim  must  be  made  out  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  Gentile  as  well  as  the  Jew.  For  since  the 
fundamental  article  of  Christianity  is,  that  Jesus  is  the 
Christ ;  (Jo.  xx.  31,)  that  is  to  say,  that  he  is  the  Messiah 
prophesied  of  in  the  Old  Testament ;  whoever  comes  into 
the  world  as  such,  must  come  as  the  Messiah  of  the  Jews, 
because  no  other  nation  did  expect,  or  pretend  to  the  pro- 
mise of  a  Messiah.  Moreover,  whoever  comes  as  this 
Messiah  of  the  Jews,  must,  at  least,  pretend  to  answer  the 
character  of  their  Messiah  plainly  delivered  in  the  writings 
of  their  prophets ;  and  the  Jews  themselves  receiving  those 
writings  as  divine,  were  not  bound  to,  neither  could  they 
consistently  with  their  duty,  receive  any,  who  did  not  answer 
in  all  points  to  the  description  therein  given. 
_.'_. 

Let  us  now  test  the  character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  by 
the  description  of  the  Messiah  given  by  the  Hebrew  Pro- 
phets. If  his  character  corresponds  in  all  respects  with  that 
given  by  those  prophets,  he  is  undoubtedly  to  be  acknowledg- 
ed as  the  King  of  Israel  foretold :  but  if  they  do  not  exactly 
correspond,  if  there  be  the  slightest  incongruity,  he  certainly 
was  not  this  Messiah.  For  it  is  evident,  that  some  of  the 
characteristic  marks  given,  may  belong  to  many  illustrious 
individuals,  but  the  whole  can  belong  to,  and  be  found  in  only 
one  person, 

The  first  characteristic  of  the  Messiah,  the  reader  will 
recollect,  was,  according  to  the  prophets,  that  he  was  to  be 
"  the  Prince  of  Peace,"  in  whose  times  righteousness  was 
to  flourish,  and  mankind  be  made  happy.  That  he  was  to 


20 

sit  upon  the  throne  of  David,  judging  right ;  and  that  to  him, 
and  their  own  land  was  Israel  to  be  gathered,  and  all  na- 
tions serve  and  obey  him  ;  and  worship  one  God,  even  Je- 
hovah. 

But  of  Jesus  we  read,  that  he  asserted,  that  his  kingdom 
was  "not  of  this  world"  Instead  of  effecting  peace  among 
the  nations,  he  said,  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  send 
peace  on  earth,  I  have  come  to  send  a  sword,  I  have  come 
to  put  division  between  a  son  and  his  father  ;  the  mother 
and  the  daughter  ;  the  daughter-in-law  and  her  mother-in- 
law."  "  Think  ye  (said  he  to  his  disciples,)  that  I  have 
come  to  put  peace  on  earth,  I  tell  you  nay,  but  rather  divi- 
sion" Again,  "  I  have  come  to  put  fire  on  the  earth." — 
These  are  not  the  characteristics  of  the  Messiah  of  the  pro- 
phets of  the  Old  Testament.  For  of  him  Zechariah  (ch.  ix.) 
says,  that  "  He  shall  speak  peace  to  the  nations ;"  and  of 
him  Isaiah  says,  ch.  ii.  "  Nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword 
against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more." — 
And  so  far  from  being  the  author  of  division,  sword,  and 
fire,  according  to  Malachi,  in  the  times  of  the  Messiah, 
"  the  heart  of  the  parents  was  to  be  converted  to  the  chil- 
dren, and  the  heart  of  the  children  to  their  parents." 

In  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  wars  were  to  cease,  righte- 
ousness was  to  flourish,  and  mankind  be  happy.  Whether 
this  has  yet  taken  place,  the  experience  of  almost  nineteen 
centuries,  and  the  present  state  of  the  world,  can  enable 
every  one  to  determine  for  himself. 

In  the  times  of  the  Messiah,  Israel  was  to  be  gathered, 
and  planted  in  their  own  land,  in  honor  and  prosperity. — 
But  not  many  years  after  the  death  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
the  Jewish  nation  underwent  the  most  dreadful  calamities ; 
and  to  this  day,  so  far  are  they  from  being  gathered,  they 
are  scattered  to  the  four  quarters  of  the  globe.  Instead  of 
being  in  honor  and  prosperity,  their  history,  since  his  time, 
is  one  dreadful  record  of  unparalleled  sufferings,  written  in 
letters  of  blood,  by  the  hands  of  Murder,  Rapine,  and 
Cruelty. 

Again — the  true  Messiah  was,  it  seems,  to  be  called 
DAVID,  and  was  to  reign  at  Jerusalem,  on  the  throne  of  Da- 
vid ;  but  the  name  "  Jesus"  is  not  the  same  as  "David"  and 
Christians  have  assigned  him  a  spiritual  kingdom,  and  a 


21 

throne  in  Heaven  !  But  was  the  throne  of  David  in  Hea- 
ven 9  No  !  it  was  in  Jerusalem,  and  no  more  in  Heaven 
than  that  of  the  Ccesars. 

Lastly,  it  appears  from  the  prophecies  of  Hosea,  Micah, 
Jeremiah,  Isaiah,  and  Ezechiel,  quoted  in  the  last  chapter, 
that  the  manifestation  of  their  Messiah,  was  to  be  contempo- 
raneous with  the  restoration  of  Israel,  and  from  the  quota- 
tions adduced  from  the  three  first  mentioned  Prophets,  it 
should  seem,  that  his  birth  was  not  to  take  place  many  years, 
before  that  glorious  event  But  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  born 
almost  two  thousand  years  ago :  and  the  children  of  Israel 
yet  expect  a  deliverer.  And  to  conclude,  it  was  foretold  by 
Malachi,  and  believed  by  the  Jews,  then,  and  ever  since, 
that  Elias  the  Prophet,  who  did  not  die,  but  was  removed 
from  the  earth,  should  precede  the  coming  of  the  Messiah, 
and  prepare  them  for  his  reception.  But  the  Prophet 
Elias  certainly  has  not  yet  appeared  ! 

Indeed,  nothing  appears  to  be  more  dissimilar  than  the 
character  of  the  Messiah,  as  given  Jby  the  Hebrew  Prophets, 
and  that  of  Jesus  of  Naxareth.  It  seems  scarcely  credi- 
ble, that  a  man,  who,  though  amiable  and  virtuous,  yet  lived 
in  a  low  state,  was  poor,  living  upon  alms,  without  wealth, 
and  without  power  :  and  who  (though  by  misfortune)  died 
the  death  of  a  malefactor,  crucified  between  two  robbers, 
(a  death  exactly  parallel  with  being  hanged  at  the  public 
gallows  in  the  present  day,)  should  ever  be  taken  for  that 
mighty  Prince,  that  universal  Potentate,  and  benefactor  of 
the  human  race,  foretold  in  the  splendid  language  of  the 
prophets  of  the  Old  Testament. 


CHAPTER  V. 

BUT  since  one  would  esteem  it  almost  incredible,  that 
the  Apostles  could  persuade  men  to  believe  Jesus  to  be 
this  Messiah,  unless  they  had,  at  least,  some  proof  to  offer  to 
their  conviction  ;  let  us  next  consider,  and  examine  the 
proofs,  adduced  by  the  Apostles,  and  their  followers,  from 
the  Old  Testament  for  that  purpose. 

Of  the  strength  or  weakness  of  the  proofs  for  Christianity 
out  of  the  Old  Testament,  we  are  well  qualified  to  judge, 
as  we  have  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  in  our  hands  •,  the 
first  containing  what  are  offered  as  proofs  of  Christianity, 
and  the  latter  the  application  of  those  proofs,  and  we  should 
seem  to  have  nothing  more  to  do,  but  to  compare  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  together. 

But  these  proofs  taken  out  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
urged  in  the  New,  being  sometimes  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Old,  nor  urged  in  the  New,  according  to  the  literal  and  ob- 
vious sense  which  they  appear  to  bear  in  their  supposed 
places  in  the  Old,  and  therefore  not  proofs  according  to  the 
rules  of  interpretation  established  by  reason,  and  acted  upon 
in  interpreting  every  other  ancient  book  :  almost  all  Chris- 
tian commentators  on  the  Bible,  and  advocates  for  the  re- 
ligion of  the  New  Testament,  both  ancient  and  modern, 
have  judged  them  to  be  applied  in  a  secondary,  or  typical,  or 
mystical,  or  allegorical,  or  enigmatical  sense.  That  is,  in  a 
sense  different  from  the  obvious  and  literal  sense  which  they 
bear  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Thus,  for  example,  Matthew,  after  having  given  an  ac- 
count of  the  conception  of  Mary,  and  the  birth  of  Jesus, 
says  (ch.  i.)  "  All  this  was  done  that  it  might  be  fulfilled 
which  was  spoken  by  the  Prophet,  saying,  "Behold  a  virgin 
shall  be  with  Child,  and  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  they 
shall  call  his  name  Immanuel."  But  the  words  as  they 
stand  in  Is.  ch.  vii.  14.  from  whence  they  are  taken,  do  in 
their  obvious  and  literal  sense  relate  to  a  young  woman  in 
the  days  of  Ahaz,  King  of  Judah,  as  will  appear,  consider- 
ing the  context. 

When  Rezin,  King  of  Syria,  and  Pekah,  King  of  Israel, 
were  confederates  in  arms  together,  against  Ahaz,  King 


23 

of  Judah,  Isaiah  the  prophet  was  sent  by  God,  first  to  com- 
fort Ahaz,  and  the  nation,  and  then  to  assure  them  by  a 
sign,  that  his  enemies  should,  in  a  little  time,  be  confounded. 
&ut  Ahaz  refusing  a  sign  at  the  Prophet's  hand,  the  Prophet 
said,  (see  the  chapter,)  "  The  Lord  shall  give  you  a  sign." 
Behold  a  virgin,  or  "  young  woman,"  (for  the  Hebrew  word 
means  both,  as  was  truly  and  justly  asserted  by  the  Jews  in 
the  primitive  ages  against  the  Christians,  and  is  now  ac- 
knowledged, and  established  beyond  dispute  by  the  best  He- 
brew scholars  of  this  age,)  shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  son, 
and  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel.  Butter  and  honey  shall  he 
eat,  that  he  may  know  to  refuse  the  evil,  and  choose  the 
good.  For  before  the  child  shall  know  to  refuse  the  evil, 
and  choose  the  good,  the  land  which  thou  abhorrest  shall 
be  forsaken  of  both  her  kings."  And  this  sign  is  accord- 
ingly given  Ahaz  by  the  Prophet,  who,  ch.  viii.  v.  2,  18  ; 
took  two  witnesses  and  went  to  the  said  young  woman,  who 
in  due  time  conceived,  and  bare  a  son,  after  whose  birth  the 
projects  of  Rezin,  and  Pekah  were  it  appears  soon  con- 
founded, according  to  the  prophecy  and  sign  given  by  the 
Prophet 

And  the  Prophet  himself,  puts  it  beyond  dispute,  that 
this  is  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  prophecy,  by  express 
words,  as  well  as  by  his  whole  narration ;  for  he  says, 
"  Behold  I,  and  the  children  whom  the  Lord  hath  given  me, 
are  for  signs,  and  for  wonders  in  Israel,  from  the  Lord  of 
Etosts,  that  dwelleth  in  mount  Zion."  Isai.  viii.  19. 

This  is  the  plain  drift,  and  design  of  the  prophet,  liter- 
aily,  obviously,  and  primarily  understood  ;  and  thus  he  is 
understood  by  one  of  the  most  judicious  of  interpreters, 
the  great  Grotius.  Indeed,  to  understand  the  prophet  as 
having  the  conception  of  Mary,  and  the  birth  of  her  son 
Jesus  from  a  virgin  mother  literally,  and  primarily  in  view, 
is  a  very  great  absurdity,  and  contrary  to  the  very  intent 
and  design  of  the  sign,  given  by  the  Prophet. 

For  the  sign  being  given  by  Isaiah  to  convince  Ahaz 
that  he  brought  a  message  from  God  to  him,  to  assure  him 
that  the  two  kings  should  not  succeed  in  their  attempt 
against  him  ;  how  could  a  virgin's  conception  and  bearing 
a  son  seven  hundred  years  afterwards,  be  a  sign  to  Ahaz, 
that  the  Prophet  came  to  him  with  the  said  message  from 
God  ?  And  how  useless  was  it  id  Ahaz,  as  well  as  absurd' 


24 

in  itself  for  the  Prophet  to  say,  "  Before  the  child  born 
seven  hundred  years  hence,  shall  distinguish  between  good 
and  evil,  the  land  which  thou  abhorrest  shall  be  forsaken 
of  both  her  kings,"  which  would  be  a  banter  instead  of  a 
sign. 

But  a  prophecy  of  the  certain  birth  of  a  male  child,  of  a 
particular  female  within  a  short  time,  seems  a  proper  sign, 
as  being  not  only  what  could  not  with  certainty  be  foretold 
except  by  a  person  inspired  ;  but  considered  as  soon  coming 
to  pass,  it  consequently  evidences  itself  to  be  a  divine 
sign,  and  answers  all  the  purposes  of  a  sign.  And  such  a 
sign  is  agreeable  to  God's  conduct  on  like  occasions  ;  wit- 
ness his  conduct  to  Gideon,  and  Hezechiah,  (Jud.  vi.,  2 
Kings  xx.) 

This  prophecy  therefore  not  being  fulfilled  in  Jesus,  ac- 
cording to  the  literal,  and  obvious  se^ise  of  the  words  as 
they  stand  in  Isaiah ;  it  is  supposed  that  this,  like  the 
other  prophecies  cited  in  the  New  Testament,  is  fulfil- 
led in  a  secondary,  or  typical,  or  mystical  sense.  That  is, 
the  said  prophecy,  which  was  literally  fulfilled  by  the  birth 
of  the  son  foretold  by  the  Prophet,  was  again  fulfilled  by  the 
birth  of  Jesus,  as  being  an  event  of  the  same  kind,  and  in- 
tended to  be  secretly  and  mystically  signified,  either  by  the 
Prophet,  or  by  God,  who  directed  the  Prophet's  speech.  If 
the  reader  desires  further  satisfaction  that  the  literal,  and 
obvious  sense  of  this  prophecy  relates  to  a  son  to  be  born 
in  Isaiah's  time,  and  not  to  Jesus,  he  is  referred  to  the  com- 
mentator Grotius  and  to  Huetius'  Demonstrat.  Evang.  in  loc. 
to  the  ancient  Fathers,  and  to  the  most  respectable  of  the 
modern  Christian  commentators,  who  all  allow  and  show, 
that  the  words  of  Isaiah  are  not  applicable  to  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  in  their  literal  sense,  but  only  in  a  mystical,  or  figu- 
rative, or  allegorical  sense. 

Again,  Matthew  gives  us  another  prophecy,  which  he 
says  was  fulfilled.  He  tells  us,  that  Jesus  was  carried  into 
Egypt;  from  whence  he  returned  after  the  death  of  Herod, 
(Mat.  ii.)  "that  it  might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  of 
the  Lord  by  the  Prophet,  saying,  *  out  of  Egypt  have  I 
called  my  sou.'"  Which  being  word  for  word  in  Hosea, 
(ch.  xi.  1.)  and  no  where  else  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, are  supposed  to  be  taken  from  thence :  where,  ac- 
cording to  their  obvious  sense  they  are  no  prophecy  at  all' 


but  relate  and  refer  to  a  past  action,  viz.  to  the  calling  of 
the  children  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt ;  which  will,  I  think, 
be  denied  by  few.  This  passage  therefore,  or,  as  it  is  styled, 
prophecy,  of  Hosea,  is  said,  by  learned  men  among  Chris- 
tians, to  be  mystically,  or  allegorically  applied,  in  order  to 
render  Matthew's  application  of  it  just ;  and  they  say,  all 
other  methods,  of  some  learned  men  to  solve  the  difficulties 
arrising  from  Matthew's  citation  of  this  passage,  have 
proved  unsuccessful. 

Ag*in,  Matthew  says,  (ch,  ii.)  "Jesus  came,  and  dwelt 
at  Nazareth,  that  it  might  be  fulfilled,  which  was  spoken  by 
the  Prophet  saying,  'he  shall  be  called  a  Nazarene;'"  but 
as  this  passage  does  not  occur  in  the  Old  Testament  at  all, 
we  are  precluded  from  ascertaining  whether  it  be  literal, 
mystical,  or  allegorical. 

Jesus  says  of  John  the  Baptist,  (Mat.  xi,  14.)  "This  is 
Elias  that  was  for  to  come;"  wherein  he  is  supposed  to  re- 
fer to  these  words  of  Malachi,  (ch.  iv.  4.)  "  Behold  1  will 
send  you  Elijah  the  Prophet,  before  the  coming  of  the  great 
and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord,"  which,  according  to  their 
literal,  and  obvious  sense,  are  a  prophecy,  that  Elijah,  or 
Elias,  was  to  come  in  person — (which  we  know  from  the  New 
Testament,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  was  the  constant  expecta- 
tion of  the  Jews.)  Besides,  this  Elijah  was  to  come  "  before 
the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord,"  which  has  not  yet 
arrived;  and,  therefore,  this  prophecy  of  Malachi  referred 
to  by  the  Evangelist,  was  certainly  not  literally,  but  only 
mystically  fulfilled  in  John  the  Baptist. 

Again,  Jesus,  (Mat.  xiii.)  cites  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah, 
(Is.  vi.  9.)  "  By  hearing  ye  shall  hear,  and  shall  not  under- 
stand :"  and  he  assures  us,  that  it  was  fulfilled  in  Ids  time  in 
those  to  whom  he  spake  in  parables,  (which,  by  the  way,  he 
did,  it  is  said,  in  order  to  fulfil  a  passage  of  the  Psalms,) 
though  it  is  manifest,  that  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  quoted, 
according  to  its  literal  sense,  undoubtedly  relates  to  the  ob- 
stinate Jews,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  Isaiah. 

In  fine,  these,  and  the  many  other  passages  cited,  as 
prophecies,  from  the  Old  Testament,  by  the  authors  of  the 
New,  do  so  plainly  relate,  in  their  obvious  and  primary 
sense,  to  other  matters  than  those  which  they  are  adduced 
to  prove,  that  it  ia  allowed  by  the  most  learned  defenders 


'26 

of  Christianity,  that  to  pretend  that  they  prove  in  a  literal 
sense  what  they  are  adduced  to  prove,  is  to  give  up,  with 
both  hands,  the  cause  of  Christianity  to  the  enemies 
thereof:  who  can  so  easily  show,  in  so  many  undoubted  in- 
stances, the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  have  no  manner  of 
connection  in  that  respect ;  but  to  be  in  an  irreconcilable 
state. 

These  proofs  from  the  Prophets  being  so  different  from 
what  we  should  expect,  it  behoves  us  to  enquire  what  could 
induce  Jesus,  and  his  Apostles  to  quote  the  Old  Testament 
in  such  a  manner  ? 

The  Jews  shortly  answer  this  question,  by  saying,  that 
they  did  so,  because  they  did  not  understand  the  meaning 
of  the  Books  they  quoted.  But  it  has  been  answered  by 
some  learned  Christians,  that  Jesus,  and  the  Apostles  did 
not  quote  in  the  manner  they  did  through  caprice  or  igno- 
rance, but  according  to  curtain  methods  of  interpretation^ 
which  were  in  their  times,  of  established  authority  among 
the  Jews. 

These  rules  of  interpretation,  which  were  supposed  to  be 
irrecoverably  lost,  were  afterwards  recovered  to  the  world, 
by  the  learned  Surenhusius,  professor  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage in  the  illustrious  school  of  Amsterdam.  He  made 
an  ample  discovery  to  the  world  of  the  rules  by  which  the 
Apostles  cited  the  Old  Testament,  and  argued  from  thence, 
wherein  the  whole  mystery  of  the  Apostles  applying  scrip- 
ture in  a  secondary,  or  typical,  or  allegorical  sense,  seems  to 
be  unfolded  I  shall  therefore  state  this  matter  from 
Surcnhusius. 

He  (Surenhusius)  says  "that  when  he  considered  the 
various  opinions  of  the  learned  about  the  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament  quoted  in  the  New,  he  was  filled  with  grief, 
not  knowing  where  to  set  his  foot  ;  and  was  much  concern- 
ed, that  what  had  been  done  with  good  success  upon  pro- 
fane authors,  could  not  be  so  happily  performed  upon  the 
sacred."  » 

He  tells  us,  "  that  having  had  frequent  occasions  to  con- 
verse with  the  Jews,  (on  account  of  his  application  to  He- 
brew literature  from  his  youth)  who  insolently  reflected 
upon  the  New  Testament,  affirming  it  to  be  plainly  cor- 


27 

rupted,  because  it  seldom,  or  never  agreed  with  the  Old 
Testament ;  some  of  whom  were  so  confident  in  this  opi- 
nion, as  to  say,  they  would  profess  the  Christian  religion, 
if  any  one  could  reconcile  the  New  Testament  with  the 
Old.  I  was  the  more  grieved,  because,  (says  this  honest 
and  well  meaning  man)  I  knew  not  how  to  apply  a  remedy  to 
this  evil."  But  the  matter  being  of  great  importance,  he 
"  discoursed  with  several  learned  men  about  it,  and  read 
the  books  of  others,  being  persuaded,  that  the  authors  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  had  written  nothing,  but  what 
was  suited  to  the  time  wherein  they  lived  ;  and  that  Christ, 
and  his  Apostles,  had  constantly  followed  the  method  of 
their  ancestors.  After  he  had  long  revolved  this  hypothesis 
in  his  mind,  at  last  he  met  with  a  Rabbin,  well  skilled  in  the 
Talmud,  the  Cabbala,  and  the  Allegorical  books  of  the  Jews. 
This  Rabbin  had  once  embraced  the  Christian  religion, 
but  was  again  relapsed  to  Judaism  on  account  of  the  ido- 
latry of  the  Papists,  yet  not  perfectly  disbelieving  the  inte- 
grity of  the  New  Testament  Surenhusius  asked  him, 
what  he  thought  of  the  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
quoted  in  the  New  ?  Whether  they  were  rightly  quoted, 
or  not  ?  and  whether  the  Jews  had  any  just  reason  to  cavil 
at  them  ?  and  at  the  same  time,  proposed  to  him,  two  or 
three  passages,  which  had  very  much  exercisepl  the  most 
learned  Christian  commentators. 

The  Rabbin  having  admirably  explained  those  passages, 
to  the  great  surprise  of  SurenhusLus,  and  confirming  his  ex- 
plications by  several  places  of  the  Talmud,  and  other 
writings  of  the  Jewish  commentators,  and  allegorical 
writers.  Surenhusius  asked  him,  what  would  be  the  best 
method  to  write  a  treatise,  in  order  to  vindicate  the  passages 
of  the  Old  Testament  quoted  in  the  New  ?  The  Rabbin 
answered,  that  he  thought  the  best  way  of  succeding  in 
such  an  undertaking,  would  be  to  peruse  a  great  part  of  the 
Talmud,  and  the  allegorical,  and  literal  commentators ;  to 
observe  their  several  ways  of  quoting,  and  interpreting 
Scripture,  and  to  collect  as  many  materials  of  that  kind,  as 
would  be  sufficient  for  that  purpose." 

Surenhusius  took  the  hint  immediately  :  he  read  such 
books  as  were  recommended,  observed  every  thing  that 
might  be  subservient  to  his  design,  and  made  a  book  upon 
the  subject.  And  in  the  third  part  of  that  book  he  gives 


28 

us  the  rules  so  long  sought  after,  viz.  the  ten  ways  used,  he 
says,  by  the  Jewish  doctors  in  citing  Scripture.  And  here 
they  are. 

1.  The  first  rule  is — "  reading  the  words  of  the  Hebrew 
Bible,  not  according  to  the  points  placed  under  them,  but 
according  to  other  points  substituted  in  their  stead,"  as  is 
done  by  Peter,  Acts  iii.  3  ;  by  Stephen,   Acts  vii,  43,  and 
by  Paul,  1  Cor.  xv.  54  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  15,  and  Heb.  iii.  10  ; 
ix.  21;  xii.  6. 

2.  The  second  rule  is — "  changing  the  letters,  whether 
those  letters  be  of  the  same  organ,  (as  the  Hebrew  gram- 
marians speak,)  or  not,"  as  is  done  by  Paul,  Rom.  ix.  33; 
1  Cor.  xi.  9  ;  Heb.  viii.  9,  and  x.  5  ;  and  by  Stephen,  Acts 
vii.  43. 

3.  The  third  is — "  changing  both  letters  and  points,"  as 
is  done  by  Paul,  Acts  xiii.  41,  and  2  Cor.  viii.  15. 

4.  The  fourth  is — "  adding  some  letters,  and  taking  away 

others." 

5.  The  fifth  is — "  transposing  words  and  letters." 

6.  The  sixth  is — "  dividing  one  word  into  two," 

7.  The  seventh  is — "  adding  other  words  to  those  in  the 
text,  in  order  to  make  the  sense  more  clear,  and  to  accom- 
modate it  to  the  subject  they  are  upon." 

8.  The  eighth  is — "changing  the  order  of  words." 

9.  The  ninth  is — •«  changing  the  order  of  words,  and  ad- 
ding other  words." 

10.  The  tenth  is — "  changing  the  order  of  words,  adding 
words,  and  retrenching  words,"  which,  (says  he)  is  a  method 
often  used  by  Paul     Of  the  application  of  all  these  rules  he 
gives  examples  taken  from  the  New  Testament. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  make  many  observations  upon 
these  rules,  they  speak  for  themselves  most  significantly  : 
for  what  is  there  that  cannot  be  proved  from  the  Old  Tea- 


lament,  or  any  other  book,  yea,  from  Euclid's  Elements  ! 
or  even  an  old  almanac  !  by  the  help  of  "  altering  words 
and  sentences  ;  adding,  retrenching,  and  transposing,  and 
cutting  words  in  two  ;"  as  is  stated  above  by  a  learned  and 
good  man,  and  sincere  Christian ;  who  found  out,  and 
brought  forward  these  rules,  as  the  best  means  of  getting  the 
authors  of  the  New  Testament  out  of  a  difficulty,  which 
had  long  shocked,  and  grieved,  their  best  friends. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

It  may  be  objected  from  divers  learned  authors,  who 
liave  been  very  sensible  of  the  difficulties  stated  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapters,  and  have,  therefore,  taken  other  ground 
than  their  predecessors,  in  order  to  defend  themselves  the 
better ;  I  say,  it  may  be  objected  to  what  I  have  advanced, 
that  Christianity  is  not,  in  fact,  grounded  on  the  propheti- 
cal, or  other  quotations  made  from  the  Old,  in  the  New 
Testament ;  but  that  those  quotations  being  allegorically 
applied  by  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament,  are  merely 
arguments  ad  hominem,  to  convince  the  Jews  of  the  truth 
of  Christianity,  who  allowed  such  a  method  of  arguing  to 
be  valid ;  and  are  not  arguments  to  the  rest  of  mankind. 

To  which  I  answer — That  this  distinction  is  the  pure 
invention  of  those  who  make  the  objection,  and  not  only,  has 
no  foundation  in  the  New  Testament,  but  is  utterly  sub- 
verted by  its  express  declarations.  For  the  authors  of  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament  always  argue  absolutely  from 
the  quotations  they  cite  as  prophecies,  out  of  the  books  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Moses,  and  the  Prophets,  are  every 
where  represented  to  be  a  just  foundation  for  Christianity  ; 
and  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  expressly 
says,  ch.  xvi.  25,  26,  "The  gospel  which  was  kept  se- 
cret since  the  world  began,  was  now  made  manifest  by  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Prophets  (wherein  that  gospel  was  secretly 
contained)  to  all  nations  :"  by  the  means  of  the  preachers 
of  the  gospel,  who  gave  the  secret  or  spiritual  sense  of  those 
Scriptures.  For,  to  the  ancient  Jews,  according  to  them, 
the  gospel  was  preached  by  the  types  of  their  law,  and 
therefore  must  have  been  considered  as  truly  contained  in  it 


30 

Besides,  the  authors  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament 
were  convinced,  long  before  the  publication  of  them,  that  the 
gospel  was  to  be  preached  to  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the 
Jews,  to  both  of  whom,  therefore,  they  reasoned  allegorically 
in  their  books,  as  Peter  and  others  did  in  their  sermons, 
though  with  greater  success  on  Gentiles,  than  on  Jews  : 
and  as  Paul  did  before  Felix,  when  he  said  he  took  his 
heresy,  or  Christianity,  from  the  law,  and  the  Prophets, 
Acts  xxiv.,  as  also  he  did  before  Agrippa.  It  should  there- 
fore seem  strange,  that  books  written  to  all  the  world,  by 
men  equally  concerned  to  convert  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews, 
and  that  discourses  made  expressly  to  Gentiles  as  well  as  to 
Jews,  should  be  designed  to  be  pertinent  only  to  Jews,  much 
less  to  a  very  few  Jews  !  Indeed  I  am  ashamed  at  being  thus, 
long  engaged  in  showing  what  must  be  self-evident ;  and 
did  I  not  fear  being  further  tedious  to  my  reader,  I  would 
undertake  to  bring  together  passages  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment, where  the  meaning  and  intention,  of  the  writers,  are 
obvious,  in  such  abundance,  as  would  immediately,  and  en- 
tirely, put  the  hypothesis  of  our  opponents  out  of  counte- 
nance. 

These  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  are  certainly 
urged,  and  spoken  of  as  direct  proofs,  as  absolute  proofs  in 
themselves  ;  and  not  as  mere  proofs  ad  hominem  to  the  Jews. 
For  if  these  prophecies  are  only  urged  by  the  Apostles  as 
proofs  to  the  Jews,  and  intended  only  as  proofs  founded  on 
the  mistaken  meanings  of  the  Old  Testament  of  some  Jews 
of  their  time,  what  sense  is  there  in  appealing  upon  all  oc- 
casions, to  the  Prophets,  and  recommending  the  reading,  and 
search  of  the  Old  Testament,  for  the  trial,  and  proof  oi'  what 
was  preached  ?  For  that  was  to  proceed  on  weakness  it- 
self, knowing  it  to  be  so.  Certainly  nothing  but  a  real  per- 
fuasion,  that  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  were 
really  fulfilled  in  Jesus,  could  make  them  every  where  in- 
culcate, and  appeal  to  the  fulfilling  of  prophecy.  In  order 
to  support  their  hypothesis,  Christians  have  been  forced  to 
seek  evidence  to  prove  that  the  phrase,  "  this  was  done  that 
it  might  be  fulfilled,"  so  frequent  in  the  New  Testament, 
meant  no  such  thing,  but  was  only  a  habit  the  Jews  had  got 
of  introducing  by  such  phrases  a  handsome  quotation  or  al- 
lusion from  the  Old  Testament.  But  this  evasion  must  be 
given  up  on  two  accounts :  1,  Because  most  of  the  European 
biblical  critics  of  the  present  day,  (the  learned  annotator  on 
Michaelis'  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  Dr.  Marsh, 


31 

among  others)  frankly  acknowledge  it  not  to  be  tenable  ; 
and  2,  Because  it  can  be  proved  not  to  be  so  from  the  New 
Testament  itself.  For  example,  when  John  represents  (Jo. 
xix.  28,)  Jesus  upon  the  cross  saying,  "I  thirst,  that  the 
Scripture  might  be  fulfilled ',"  doth  he  not  plainly  represent  Je- 
sus as  fulfilling  a  prophecy  which  foretold  that  the  Messiah 
should  thirst,  or  say,  "  I  thirst  upon  the  cross  ?  Nay, 
does  he  not  suppose  him  to  say  so,  in  order  to  fulfil,  or  that 
he  might  fulfil  a  prophecy  ?  Is  it  not  also  suitable  to  the 
character  of  Jesus,  who  founded  his  Messiahship  on  the 
prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  could  not  but  have 
the  accomplishment  of  those  prophecies  constantly  in  view 
to  fulfil,  and  to  intend  to  fulfil  them  ?  And  is  it  not  un- 
suitable in  John,  in  describing  his  master  dying  upon  the 
cross,  to  represent  him,  as  saying  things,  whereby  he  only 
gave  occasion  to  observe,  that  he  fulfilled,  i.  e.  accommodated 
a  phrase  !  not  a  prophecy  !  ! 

Besides,  they  who  set  up  this  accommodating  principle  of 
accommodation,  do,  in  some  cases,  take  the  term  fulfilled  in 
its  proper  sense,  and  do  allow  it  (when  convenient)  to  relate 
to  a  prophecy  really  fulfilled.  B  ut  I  would  ask  them,  what  rule 
they  have  to  know  when  the  Apostles  mean  a  prophecy 
fulfilled,  and  when  a  phrase  accommodated,  since  they  are 
acknowledged  to  use  the  strong  expression  of  fuljilling  in 
the  latter  case,  no  less  than  in  the  former  ? 

In  a  word,  unless  it  be  granted,  that  the  citations  were 
intended  by  the  Authors  of  the  New  Testament,  to  be  ad- 
duced, and  applied  as  prophecies  fulfilled ;  if  you  do  sup- 
pose them  not  intended  to  be  adduced,  and  applied  as  pro- 
phecies ;  then  the  whole  affair  of  Jesus  being  foretold  as  the 
Messiah  is  reduced  to  an  accommodation  of  phrases  !  And 
it  will  assuredly  follow,  that  the  citations  of  Jesus  and  his 
Apostles  out  of  the  Old  Testament,  are  like,  and  no  better 
than  the  work  of  the  Empress  Eudoxia,  who  wrote  the 
History  of  Jesus  in  verses  put  together,  and  borrowed  out  of 
— HOMER  !  or  that  of  Proba  Falconia,  who  did  the  same, 
in  verses,  and  words  taken  out  of — VIRGIL  ! 

In  fine,  one  of  two  things  must  be  allowed,  either  (which 
is  most  probable,)  the  Authors  of  the  New  Testament, 
conceived  their  citations  to  be  indeed  prophecies  concerning 
Jesus,  and  then  they  were  ignorant  and  blundered,  and 
therefore  were  not  inspired  ;  or  they  knowingly  used  them 


32 

as  means  to  deceive  the  simple  and  credulous,  into  a  belief 
of  their  being  testimonies  sufficient  to  prove  what  they 
themselves  knew  they  had  no  relation  to,  and  then  they 
were  Deceivers  :  there  is  no  other  alternative,  and  each 
horn  of  the  Dilemma,  must  prove  as  fatal  as  the  other. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  said,  "  It  is  to  no  purpose  for  you  to 
object  to  the  quotations,  or.  the  arguments  of  Jesus,  and  his 
Apostles,  for  God  was  with  them,  confirming  their  Doctrine 
by  signs  following.  They  had  from  God  the  power  of  work- 
ing miracles,  and  consequently,  their  interpretations  of 
Scripture,  however  strange  they  may  appear  to  your  minds, 
must  be  infallible,  they  being  men  inspired." 

To  this  argument  it  can  be  justly  answered,  first,  that 
the  question,  whether  Jesus  be  the  Messiah,  entirely  de- 
pends, as  proved  before,  upon  his  answering  the  characteris- 
tics given  of  that  personage  by  the  Jewish  Prophets;  and 
all  the  miracles  in  the  world,  could  never,  from  the  nature 
of  the  case,  prove  him  to  be  so,  unless  his  character  does 
entirely  agree  with  the  archetype  laid  down  by  them,  as  has 
been  already  abundantly  proved. 

Secondly,  That  whether  these  miracles  were  really  per- 
formed, or  not,  depends  entirely  upon  the  credibility  of  the 
Authors  themselves  who  have  thus  quoted !  which,  as  shall 
be  shown  hereafter,  may  be  disputed :  and  thirdly,  it  could 
be  retorted  upon  Protestants,  that  this  same  argument  is 
the  same  in  principle  with  the  often  refuted  Popish  argu- 
mentation. The  Papists  pretend  to  derive  all  their  new  in- 
vented and  absurd  Doctrines,  and  Practices,  from  the  Scrip- 
tures by  their  interpretations  of  them  ;  But  yet,  when  their 
interpretations  are  attacked  from  Scripture,  they  immedi- 
ately fly  from  thence  to  the  miracles  wrought  in  their 
Church,  and  to  the  visions  of  their  holy  men  and  saints, 
for  the  establishment  of  their  interpretations,  by  which  they 
support  those  very  doctrines  and  practices  ;  and  particu- 
larly, they  endeavour  to  prove  thus  the  doctrine  of  Tran- 
subsiantiation,  from  the  numerous  miracles  affirmed  to  have 
been  wrought  in  its  behalf,  which  reasoning  Protestant 
Christians  assert,  to  be  an  argument  absurd  and  inconclu- 
sive, therefore  they  should  not  use  it  themselves. 

We  allow,  that  if  these  interpretations  of  the  sense  of 
the  Old  Testament,  had  been  in  existence  Iffvre  the  Chris- 


33 

tian  Era,  it  might  be  something.  But  we  beg  leave  to  re- 
mind them,  that  it  is  certain,  that  these  interpretations  were 
not  published  till  after  the  events  to  which  they  are  re- 
ferred took  place,  which  is  a  circumstance  of  obvious  signi- 
Jicancy. 

In  fine,  to  this  argument,  I  would  answer  as  in  Cicero — 
[de  Natura,  Deor.  Ed.  Dav.  p.  209.]  Cotta  did  to  Balbus, 
"  rumoribus  mecum  pugnas,  ego  autem  a  te  rationes  requiro." 


CHAPTER  VII. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  how  was  it  possible,  that  wise  and 
good  men  could  have  been  led  to  embrace  the  Religion  of  the 
New  Testament,  if  there  were  not  in  the  Old  Testament, 
some  prophecies  which  might  be  conceived  by  them  to 
supply,  at  least,  plausible  arguments  to  prove  that  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  was  the  Messiah  ?  Are  there  no  other  passages 
in  the  Prophets,  besides  those  quoted  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  are  there  not  a  few  passages  quoted  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, which  appear  more  to  the  purpose  than  those  we  have 
been  considering  ?  To  this  I  candidly  answer,  that  there 
are,  and  this  chapter  will  be  devoted  to  the  consideration  of 
them. 

Two  of  these  prophecies,  one  from  Genesis,  and  the  other 
from  Daniel,  are  thought  by  the  advocates  of  Christianity 
(because  they  conceive  them  to  point  out,  and  to  limit  the 
time  of  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,)  to  be  stronger  in  their 
favour  than  any  of  those  quoted  in  the  New  Testament.  If 
so,  it  is  a  very  singular  circumstance,  that  the  inspired 
authors  of  the  New  Testament  did  not  make  use  of  them, 
instead  of  others  not  so  much  to  the  purpose.  This  cir- 
cumstance, of  itself,  should  teach  us  to  examine  the  pro- 
phecies in  question  with  caution,  and  also  with  candour ; 
since  many  worthy  and  religious  men  have  thought  them 
sufficient  to  prove,  that  Jesus  was  indeed  the  Messiah. 
These  prophecies  I  shall  reserve  last  for  consideration,  and 
shall  now  begin  with  the  others  usually  adduced,  taking 
them  up  pretty  much  in  the  order  in  which  they  stand  in 
the  Old  Testament. 


34 

The  first  passage  is  taken  from  Deut.  xviii.  15,  "  The? 
Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  Prophet  from  the 
midst  of  thee,  like  unto  me,  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken. 
According  to  all  that  thou  desiredst  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in 
Horeb,  in  the  day  of  the  Assembly,  saying,  Let  me  not 
hear  again  the  voice  of  the  Lord  my  God,  neither  let  me 
see  this  great  Fire  any  more,  that  I  die  not  And  the  Lord 
said  unto  me,  they  have  well  spoken  that  which  they  have 
spoken.  I  will  raise  them  up  a  Prophet  from  among  their 
Brethren,  like  unto  thee,  and  I  will  put  my  word  into  his 
mouth,  and  he  shall  speak  unto  them  all  that  I  command 
him.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  whoever  will  not 
hearken  unto  my  words  which  he  shall  speak  in  my  name, 
I  will  require  it  of  him." 

This  passage  is  pertinaciously,  and  solely  applied  to  Jesus, 
by  many  Christian  writers,  because  it  is  so  applied  by 
Peter,  in  the  2  ch.  of  Acts,  in  his  sermon  to  the  Jews,  just 
after  he  had  received  the  full  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and,  of  course,  must  be  considered  as  infallible.  Never- 
theless, these  words  of  Moses  are  supposed  by  many  learned 
men,  both  Jews  and  Christians,  to  be  spoken  of  Joshua, 
whom  Moses  himself  afterwards,  at  the  command  and  ap- 
pointment of  God,  declared  to  be  his  successor,  and  who  was 
endowed  with  the  spirit  which  was  upon  Moses  :  See  Deut. 
xxxi.  33;  xxxiv.  17:  and  to  whom  the  Jews  then  promised 
to  hearken,  and  pay  obedience  as  they  had  done  before 
to  Moses.  But  others  understand  them  to  be  a  promise  of 
a  succession  of  Prophets,  to  whom  the  Jews  might,  upon 
all  occasions,  have  recourse.  And  one,  or  the  other,  of  these 
seems  to  be  the  certain  meaning  of  the  place ;  from  this 
consideration,  that  from  the  context  it  appears  Moses  was 
giving  the  Jews  directions  of  immediate  use :  and  therefore, 
in  promising  a  Prophet  to  them  to  whom  they  should  hearken, 
he  seems  to  intend  an  immediate  Prophet,  who  might  be  of 
use  to  the  Jews,  and  answer  their  common  exigencies,  and 
not  a  Prophet  two  thousand  years  to  come. 

But  I  take  the  words  to  promise  a  succession  of  Prophets, 
and  for  that  sense  wherein  Grotius,  and  Le  Clerc,  and  most 
of  the  Jews  take  them.  I  shall  give  my  reasons  for  this, 
and  show  that  they  do  not  necessarily  refer  to  Jesus  Christ. 

Moses,  in  the  verses  preceding  this  prophecy  in  the  same 
chapter,  Deut.  xviii,  9 — 14,  tells  the  Israelites  from  God, 


35 

that  "  when  they  came  into  Canaan,  they  should  not  learn 
to  do  after  the  abominations  of  the  people  thereof;  and 
particularly,  that  there  should  not  be  found  among  them 
any  one  that  useth  Divination,  or  an  observer  of  times,  &c., 
or  a  consulter  with  familiar  spirits,  &c.  For  all,  says  he, 
that  do  these  things,  are  an  abomination  to  the  Lord ;  and 
because  of  these  abominations  the  Lord  thy  God  doth  drive 
these  people  out  from  before  thee.  For  these  nations  which 
thou  shalt  possess  hearkened  unto  observers  of  times,  and 
unto  diviners.  But  as  for  thee,  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  not 
suffered  thee  to  do  so."  Then  follow  the  words  about  the 
Prophet,  "The  Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a 
Prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee  of  thy  Brethren  like  unto 
me,  unto  him  ye  shall  hearken."  All  which  is  as  much  as 
to  say,  "  When  you  come  into  Canaan,  do  not  hearken  to  a 
Diviner,  &c.,  as  the  Canaanites  do,  for  the  Lord  will  give 
you  a  Prophet  of  your  own  Brethren,  inspired  like  me,  to 
guide,  and  instruct  you,  to  whom  ye  shall  hearken."  Or 
rather,  "  Do  not  hearken  to  Diviners,  &c.,  but  to  Prophets 
who  shall  be  raised  up  among  you." 

Now,  that  the  words  cited  must  relate  to  a  succession  of 
Prophets,  to  begin  upon  the  Israelites  taking  possession  of 
the  land  of  Canaan,  is  manifest,  because  the  raising  up  of 
a  Prophet  to  whom  they  were  to  hearken,  is  the  reason  given 
why  they  should  not  hearken  to  a  Diviner,  &c.,  when  they 
came  into  that  land ;  which  reason  could  have  no  force  un- 
less they  were  to  have,  1st — an  immediate  Prophet  in 
Canaan.  (For  what  sense  is  there,  or  would  there  be  in 
saying,  "  Don't  hearken  to  such  Diviners  as  are  in  Canaan, 
when  you  come  there  ;  for  you  shall  have  a  Prophet  of  your 
own,  to  whom  ye  shall  hearken,  two  thousand  years  after  you 
pome  there  ?"J 

2dly.  As  the  context  shows  that  the  Prophet  to  be  raised 
up,  was  an  immediate  Prophet,  so  it  also  shows,  that  the 
singular  number  here  stands  for  the  plural,  according  to  the 
frequent  custom  of  the  Hebrew  language,  as  is  shewn  by 
Le  Clerc  and  Stillingfleet,  in  loco.  For  one  single  Prophet 
to  be  raised  up  immediately,  who  might  soon  die,  could  not 
be  a  reason  why  Jews  of  succeeding  generations  should  not 
hearken  to  Diviners,  in  Canaan. 

Finally,  the  words  of  God  by  Moses,  which  follow  the 
promise  of  a  Prophet,  evidently  shew  that  by  that  pro- 


30 

tnise,  Prophets  were  intended,  in  laying  down  a  a  rule  for  the 
test,  or  trial  of  the  Prophets  before  mentioned,  in  such  a 
manner,  as  implies,  that  that  rule  was  to  be  applied  to  all 
Prophets  pretending  to  come  from  him.  See  the  words  in 
Deut.  xviii.,  19—22. 

I  shall  conclude  this  explication,  by  adducing  in  confirm- 
ation of  it,  the  paraphrase  of  the  words  given  in  the  Targum 
of  Jonathan.  "  The  nations  you  are  about  to  possess  (says 
the  Jewish  Paraphrast)  hearken  to  Jugglers  and  Diviners  : 
But  you  shall  not  be  like  them ;  for  your  Priests  shall  en- 
quire by  Urim  and  Thummim,  and  the  Lord  your  God 
shall  give  you  a  true  Prophet."  And  this  explication  is  the 
one  adopted  by  Origen. — [Contra  Celsum,  p.  28.] 

As  to  the  difficulty  that  is  raised  against  this  explication 
from  the  words  at  the  end  of  Deuteronomy,  "  That  there 
arose  not  a  Prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses,  whom 
the  Lord  knew  face  to  face  ;  in  all  the  signs  and  wonders 
which  the  Lord  sent  him  to  do,"  &c.  it  is  nothing  at  all.  For 
every  one  perceives,  that  the  word  " like"  may  be,  and  fre- 
quently is  used  in  Scripture,  and  in  common  language,  to 
signify  similarity  in  some,  though  not  in  every  particular  ; 
and  every  Prophet,  who  speaks  by  God's  direction,  is  a 
Prophet  "  like  unto  Moses,"  who  did  the  same  ;  though  he 
be  not  like,  or  equal  to  him  "  in  doing  signs  and  wonders  ;" 
which  is  all  that  is  affirmed  in  the  last  chapter  of  Deuter- 
onomy. 

And  finally,  there  is  nothing  to  limit  this  prophecy  to 
Jesus  of  Nazareth,  if  we  allowed,  (what  we  reject,)  the 
Christian  interpretation  ;  since  God  might  to-morrow,  if 
such  were  his  will,  raise  up  a  Prophet  like  unto  Moses  in 
every  respect,  which  Jesus  certainly  was  not ;  therefore,  it 
cannot  be  applied,  and  restrained  to  the  purpose  for  which 
it  is  quoted  by  Peter. 

There  is  in  the  same  Sermon,  in  the  2  ch.  of  Acts,  ano- 
their  passage  quoted  by  Peter  from  the  Psalms,  and  ap- 
plied by  him  to  prove  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  on 
which  he  lays  very  great  stress,  which  after  all  seems  to  be 
nothing  to  the  purpose.  Peter  says,  "  him,  (i.  e.  Jesus) 
God  had  raised  up,  having  loosed  the  pains  (or  bands)  of 
death,  because  it  was  not  possible  that  he  should  be  holden 
of  it."  And  why  ?  "  For,  (because)  David  speaketh  con- 


37 

cerning  him,  "  I  foresaw  the  Lord  always  before  my  face, 
for  he  is  on  my  right  hand,  that  I  should  not  be  moved. 
Therefore  did  my  Heart  rejoice,  and  my  tongue  was  glad ; 
moreover  also  my  flesh  shall  rest  in  hope.  Because  thou 
wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  Hades,  (the  place  of  departed 
Spirits,)  nor  suffer  thy  Holy  one  to  see  corruption,  thou 
hast  made  known  to  me  the  ways  of  life,  thou  shalt  make 
me  full  of  joy  with  thy  countenance."  Men  and  Brethren, 
let  me  freely  speak  unto  you  of  the  Patriarch  David,  that  he 
is  both  dead,  and  buried,  and  his  sepulchre  is  with  us  unto 
this  day.  Therefore  being  a  Prophet,  and  knowing  that 
God  had  sworn  with  an  oath  to  him,  that  of  the  fruit  of  his 
loins,  according  to  the  flesh,  he  would  raise  up  Christ  to  sit 
upon  his  Throne.  He,  seeing  this  before,  spake  of  the  re- 
surrection of  Christ,  that  his  soul  was  not  left  in  Hades, 
neither  did  his  flesh  see  corruption. 

How  imposing  is  this  argument  !  How  plausible  it  ap- 
pears !  And  yet  it  is  irrelevant,  as  Dr.  Priestly  frankly  con- 
fesses, who  tries  to  save  the  credit  of  the  Apostle  by  the 
convenient  principle  of  accommodation  !  The  wrhole  force  of 
Peter's  reasoning  depends  upon  the  word  " corruption" — 
David  did  see  corruption,  therefore  he  could  not  mean 
himself,  but  "  being  a  Prophet,  &c."  he  meant  Jesus  Christ. 
Now  the  whole  of  Peter's  argument  is  grounded  upon  two 
mistakes,  for  1st,  the  Hebrew  word  translated  " corruption" 
here  signifies  "  destruction,  perdition"  and  in  the  next 
place,  instead  of  being  "  thy  Holy  one"  in  the  singular,  it  is 
in  the  Hebrew  " thy  Saints"  in  general.  The  passage  is 
quoted  from  the  16th  Psalm  :  and  I  will  give  a  literal  trans- 
lation of  it  from  the  Original,  which  will  make  the  pro- 
priety, or  impropriety  of  Peter's  quotation  perfectly  obvious. 
The  contents,  and  import  of  the  Psalm,  according  to  the 
English  version,  are  as  follow : — "  David,  in  distrust  of  his 
merits,  and  hatred  of  Idolatry,  fleeth  to  God  for  perserva- 
tion.  He  showeth  the  hope  of  his  calling,  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  of  life  everlasting." — And  the  passage  in  question, 
according  to  the  original,  reads  thus.  "I  have  set  the 
Lord  always  before  me  :  because  he  is  on  my  right  hand, 
I  shall  not  be  moved  :  therefore  my  heart  is  glad,  and  my 
glory  (i.  e.  tongue)  rejoiceth  :  my  flesh  also  shall  rest  in 
hope.  For  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  Hades,  neither 
wilt  thou  suffer  thy  Saints  to  see  destruction.  Thou  wilt 
show  me  the  path  of  Life  ;  in  thy  presence  is  fulness  of 


38 

joy,  and  at  thy  right  hand  are  pleasures  for  evermore." 
That  is — "  Because  I  have  ever  trusted  in  thee,  and  ex-? 
perienced  thy  constant  protection,  therefore  I  will  not  fear 
death  ;  because  thou  wilt  not  forever  leave  my  soul  in  the 
place  of  departed  spirits,  nor  suffer  thy  saints  to  perish 
from  existence.  Thou  wilt  raise  me  from  the  dead,  and 
make  me  happy  forever  in  thy  presence." 

In  the  4  ch.  of  the  Acts,  the  Apostles  are  represented  as 
praying  to  God,  and  referring  in  their  Prayer  to  the  2d 
Psalm  "  why  did  the  Heathen  rage,  &c."  as  being  a  pro- 
phecy of  the  opposition  of  the  Jews  to  Jesus  :  with  how 
much  justice  may  be  seen  from  these  circumstances  : 

1.  That  "  the  Nations"  as  it  is  in  the  original,  did  not  as- 
semble together  to  crucify  Jesus,  as  this  was  done  by  a  few 
soldiers.  2ndly,  The  "  Kings  of  the  Earth"  had  no  hand  in  it, 
for  they  knew  nothing  about  it.  And  3dly,  Those  who 
were  concerned  did,  by  no  means,  "  form  vain  designs,"  since 
they  effected  their  cruel  purpose.  And  lastly,  from  that 
time  to  the  present ;  God  has  not  set  Jesus  as  his  King 
upon  the  "  holy  hill  of  Sion,"  (as  the  Psalm  imports,)  nor 
given  him  "  the  Nations  for  his  inheritance,  nor  the  utter- 
most  parts  of  the  Earth  for  a  possession." 

The  next  prophecy  usually  adduced  to  prove  that  Jesus 
is  the  Messiah,  is  the  passage  quoted  from  Micah,  v.  2,  in 
the  second  chapter  of  Mat.  "  But  thou  Bethlehem 
Ephratah,  though  thou  be  little  among  the  chiefs  of  Judah, 
yet  out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me,  that  is  to  be 
ruler  in  Israel,  whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old, 
from  the  days  of  hidden  ages."  This  passage  probably  re- 
fers to  the  Messiah,  but  by  no  means  signifies  that  this 
Messiah  was  to  be  born  in  Bethlehem,  as  asserted  by  Mat- 
thew ;  but  only,  that  he  was  to  be  derived  from  Bethlehem, 
the  City  of  Jesse,  the  father  of  David,  of  famous  memory, 
whose  family  was  venerable-for  its  antiquity,  "  being  of  the 
days  of  hidden  ages."  And  this  interpretation  is  known 
and  acknowledged  by  Hebrew  scholars.  But,  in  order  to 
cut  short  the  dispute,  we  will  permit  the  passage  to  be  in- 
terpreted as  signifying  that  Bethlehem  was  to  be  the  birth 
place  of  the  Messiah.  What  then  ?  Will  a  man's  leing 
born  in  Bethlehem  be  sufficient  to  make  him  to  be  the  Mes- 
siah foretold  by  the  Hebrew  Prophets  ?  Surely  it  has 
been  made  plain  in  the  beginning  of  this  work,  tnat  many 


39 

more  characteristic  marks  than  this  must  meet  in  one  person, 
in  order  to  constitute  him  the  Messiah  described  by  them ! 

In  Zechariah,  ix.  9,  it  is  written,  "  Rejoice  greatly,  O 
Daughter  of  Sion.  Shout  O  Daughter  of  Jerusalem  !  Be- 
hold thy  king  cometh  unto  thee,  the  righteous  one,  and 
saved,  or  preserved  (ac.  to  the  Heb.)  lowly,  and  riding  upon 
an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt,  the  foal  of  an  ass."  This  has  been 
applied  by  the  Evangelists  to  Jesus,  who  rode  upon  an  ass 
into  Jerusalem. 

But,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  there 
seems  to  have  been  a  blunder  in  this  transaction ;  for  accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  Idiom  of  the  passage  quoted  above,  the 
personage  there  spoken  of  was  to  ride  upon  "  an  ass'  colt  ;" 
whereas  the  Apostles,  in  order  to  be  sure  of  fulfilling  the 
prophecy,  represent  Jesus  as  riding  up  an  ass,  and  the  colt 
too  !  "  They  spread  their  garments  upon  them,  and  set  him 
upon  them."  See  the  Evangelists  in  loc.  In  the  next  place, 
a  man  may  ride  into  Jerusalem  upon  an  ass,  without  be- 
ing thus  necessarily  demonstrated  to  be  the  Messiah.  And 
unless,  as  said  before,  every  tittle  of  the  marks  given  by  the 
Prophets  to  designate  their  Messiah,  be  found  in  Jesus,  and 
in  any  other  claiming  to  be  that  Messiah,  his  being  born  in 
Bethlehem,  and  riding  upon  an  ass  into  Jerusalem,  will  by  no 
means  prove  him  to  be  so.  Besides,  those  who  will  take  the 
trouble  to  look  at  the  context  in  Zechariah,  will  find,  that 
the  event  spoken  of  in  the  quotation,  is  spoken  of  as  contem- 
poraneous with  the  restoration  of  Israel,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  peace  and  happiness,  which  seems  to  cut  up  by  the 
roots,  the  interpretation  of  Evangelists.  And  to  conclude 
the  argument,  Jesus  being  born  in  Bethlehem,  and  riding 
into  Jerusalem,  allowing  it  to  be  true,  would  not,  we  think, 
frustrate  these  prophecies  of  a  future  fulfilment :  for  no  one 
can  disprove,  that,  if  so  be  the  will  of  God,  such  a  person  as 
the  Messiah  is  described  to  be,  might  be  born  in  Bethlehem 
to-morrow,  and  ride  in  triumph  into  Jerusalem  twenty  years 
afterwards. 

The  next  passage  which  has  been  offered  as  a  prophecy  of 
Jesus,  is  to  be  found  in  the  12th  ch.  of  Zech.  v.  10,  and  part 
of  it  has  been  misquoted  by  John.  "  And  I  will  pour  upon 
the  House  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem, 
the  spirit  of  grace,  and  supplications,  and  they  shall  look  on 
me,  whom  they  have  pierced"  So  it  stands  in  the  English 


40 

version,  but  before  I  state  what  it  ought  to  be,  I  would  ob~ 
serve,  that  before  the  Evangelist,  (who,  in  his  account  of  the 
crucifixion,  applies  this  passage  as  referring  to  Jesus's  being 
pierced  with  a  spear,)  could  make  this  passage  fit  his  pur- 
pose, he  had  to  substitute  the  word  " Mm"  for  "  me"  as  it 
is  in  the  Hebrew,  confirmed  by,  I  believe,  all  the  versions, 
ancient  and  modern,  without  exception.  Yet,  with  this 
change,  it  will  by  no  means  answer  his  purpose ;  for  the  He- 
brew word  here  translated  "  pierced,"  in  this  place  signifies 
"  blasphemed"  or  "  insulted"  as  it  is  understood  by  Grotius, 
who  confirms  this  rendering  from  the  Hebrew  of  Levit.  xxiv. 
11,  where,  in  this  passage,  "  the  Israelitish  woman's  son 
blasphemed  the  name  of  the  Lord."  The  Hebrew  word 
translated  "  blasphemed"  is  from  the  same  root  with  the  He- 
brew word  translated  "  pierced"  in  the  passage  in  Zechariah 
quoted  above.  So  that  the  passage  ought  to  be  translated 
thus  :  "  I  will  pour  upon  the  House  of  David,  and  upon  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace,  and  supplica- 
tions, and  they  shall  look  towards  me  whom  they  have 
blasphemed"  (To  "  look  towards  God"  is  a  phrase  fre- 
quently met  with,  and  well  understood.)  Now  to  enable  us 
to  understand  more  perfectly  this  passage,  let  us  consider 
the  context,  where  we  shall  find,  that  it  states,  that  there 
was  to  be  a  war  in  Judea,  and  a  siege  of  Jerusalem,  and  then 
a  deliverance  of  the  Jews,  by  the  destruction  of  all  the  nations 
that  should  come  up  at  that  time,  against  Jerusalem.  Imme- 
diately after  which  matters,  follows  the  prophecy  under  con- 
sideration, "  I  will  pour  upon  the  House  of  David,  &c."— 
Now,  from  these  things  thus  laid  down  together,  I  crave  leave 
to  argue  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Sykes,  (Essay,  &c.  p.  268.) 
"  Did  any  one  circumstance  of  all  this  happen  to  the  Jews 
about  the  time  of  the  death  of  Jesus  ?  or  rather  was  not  every 
thing  the  reverse  of  what  Zechariah  says ;  and  instead  of  all 
nations  being  destroyed  that  came  about  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem 
itself  was  destroyed:  instead  of  a  spirit  of  grace  and  suppli- 
cations, the  Jews  have  had  their  hearts  hardened  against  the 
Christ;  instead  of  mourning  for  him  whom  they  have  pierced, 
they  curse  him  and  his  followers,  even  until  this  day." 

But  it  is  tiresome  thus  to  waste  time  in  proving  ihatorts  and 
ends  of  verses,  disjointed  from  their  connection,  and  even  the 
words  quoted,  borne  of  them  changed,  and  some  transposed, 
(though  even  done  according  to  the  rules  given  by  the  vene- 
rable Surenhitsius,  J  prove  nothing.  We  must,  therefore,  de- 
vote the  remainder  of  this  long  chapter  to  the  consideration 


41 

of  the  three  famous  prophecies,  on  which  Christians  have  not 
hesitated,  with  triumphing  confidence,  to  rest  the  issue  of 
their  cause.  These  are  the  prophecy  of  Shiloh,  Gen.  xlix. ; 
the  53d  chap.  Isaiah ;  and  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  "Seventy 
Weeks"  I  will  consider  them  in  order,  and  thus  wind  up 
the  chapter. 

I  have  somewhere  read  in  a  Catechism,  the  following 
question  and  answer  : — Q.  "  How  can  you  confound  the 
Jews,  and  prove  from  prophecy,  that  the  Messiah  is  already 
come  ?"  A.  From  these  two  prophechies,  "  The  sceptre 
shall  not  depart  from  Judah,"  &c ,  GCH.  xlix.  ;  and  this, 
"  Seventy  weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  people,"  &c. 
Dan.  ix.  24. 

But  notwithstanding  these  overwhelming  proofs,  the  stub- 
born Jews  refuse  to  be  confounded  !  on  the  contrary,  they 
in  fact  laugh  at  Christians,  for  being  so  easily  imposed  upon. 

The  prophecy  concerning  Shiloh,  the  Jews  acknowledge, 
refers  to  their  Messiah  ;  but  they  do  not  allow  that  it  de- 
Jines,  or  limits  the  time  of  his  coming.  And  that  it  in  fact 
does  not,  will  be  perfectly  evident  to  all  who  will  look  at 
the  place  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  which  they  will  find  pointed 
to  read,  not, — "  The  Sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah, 
and  a  lawgiver  from  between  his  feet  until  Shiloh  come, 
&c."  But  thus,  "The  Sceptre  shall  not  depart  from 
Judah,  nor  a  lawgiver  from  between  his  feet  for  ever,  for 
Shiloh  shall  come,  and  to  him  shall  the  gathering  of  the 
people  be."  So  that  the  prophecy  does  not  intimate  that 
the  Messiah  should  come  before  the  Sceptre  be  departed 
from  Judah  ;  but  that  it  should  not  depart  for  ever,  but 
shall  be  restored  when  Shiloh  comes.  This  is  the  plain 
and  obvious  sense  of  the  prophecy  ;  and  moreover,  is  the 
only  one  that  is  consistent  with  historical  fact.  For  in 
truth  the  Sceptre  had  departed  from  Judah  several  hundred 
years  before  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  born.  For,  from  the 
time  of  the  Babylonish  captivity,  'JuddK  has  never  been 
free,  but  in  subjection  to  the  Persians,  the  Syrians,  the  Ro- 
mans, and  all  the  world. 

If  my  readers  desire  further  satisfaction  with  regard  to 
this  interpretation  of  this  famous  prophecy  :  I  refer  them 
to  the  dispute  upon  this  subject  between  the  celebrated 
Rittangclius,  and  a  learned  Jew,  (preserved  in  Wagenseil's 


42 

"  Tela  Ignea,")  where  he  will  find  Rittangelius  first  amica- 
bly inviting  the  Hebrew  to  discuss  the  point,  who  does  so 
most  ably,  and  respectfully  towards  his  Christian  anta- 
gonist ;  and  unanswerably  establishes  the  interpretation 
above  stated,  by  the  Laws  of  the  Hebrew  language,  by 
the  ancient  interpretation  of  the  Targum*  by  venerable 
tradition,  and  by  appealing  to  history.  Rittangelius  begins 
his  defence  by  shuffling,  and  ends  by  getting  in  a  passion, 
and  calling  names  ;  which,  his  opponent  who  is  cool,  be- 
cause confident  of  being  able  to  establish  his  argument,  an- 
swers by  notifying  to  Rittangelius  his  compassion,  and  con- 
tempt. 

The  next  prophecy  proposed  to  be  considered,  is  the 
celebrated  prophecy  of  Isaiah  consisting  of  part  of  the  52nd 
and  the  whole  of  the  53rd  ch.  It  is  the  only  prophecy 
which  Paley  thinks  worth  bringing  forward,  in  his  elaborate 
defence.  And  it  must  be  confessed,  that  if  this  prophecy 
relates  to  the  Messiah,  it  is  by  far  the  most  plausible  of  any 
that  are  brought  forward,  in  favour  of  Jesus  Christ.  It 
merits  therefore  a  thorough  discussion,  and  I  shall  endeavour 
that  it  shall  be  a  candid  one.  This  prophecy  is  quoted  by 
Jesus  himself  in  Luke  xxii.  39.,  and  by  Philip,  when  he 
converted  the  Eunuch,  (Acts  viii,)  for  "  beginning  at  this 
prophecy,  he  preached  unto  him  Jesus." 

It  will  not  be  necessary  to  cite  the  passage  at  length,  it 
being  one  perfectly  familiar  to  every  Christian.  1  will 
then,  before  I  consider  it,  first  premise,  that  since  it  has 
been  heretofore  abundantly  made  evident,  that  the  Messiah 
of  the  Old  Testament  was  not  to  suffer  and  die,  but  to  live 
and  reign,  it  is  according  to  the  rules  of  sound  criticism,  and 
I  think  sound  Theology  too,  to  interpret  this  solitary  pas- 
sage, so  that  it  may  not  contradict  very  many  others  of  a 
directly  contrary  import  Now  if  this  passage  can  relate 
only  to  the  Messiah,  it  will  throw  into  utter  confusion  the 
whole  scheme  of  the  Prophetical  Scriptures.  But  if  it 
can  be  made  to  appear,  that  it  does  not  necessarily  relate  to 
him  ;  if  it  can  consistently  with  the  context,  be  otherwise 
applied,  the  whole  difficulty  vanishes.  Now  the  Authors  of 
the  New  Testament  have  applied  this  prophecy  to  the  Mes- 
siah, and  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah ;  and  for  doing  so,  they 
have  been  accused  of  misapplication  of  it  from  the  earliest 
times  ;  since  we  know  from  Origen,  that  the  Jews  of  his  time 
derided  the  Christians  for  relying  upon  this  prophecy  ;  al- 


43 

leging  that  it  related  to  their  own  nation,  and  was  a  pro- 
phecy of  their  suffering  and  persecuted  state,  and  of  their  ul- 
timate emancipation  and  happiness.  And  this  interpretation 
of  the  prophecy,  the  learned  Vitringa  in  his  commentary  upon 
Is.  in  loc.  allows  to  be  the  most  respectable  he  had  met  with 
among  the  Jews,  and  according  to  him  "  to  be  by  no  means 
despised." 

In  order  that  the  fitness,  or  unfitness  of  this  application 
of  the  prophecy  may  be  made  apparent,  and  evident,  we 
will  now  lay  before  the  reader  this  famous  prophecy,  part 
by  part,  each  part  accompanied  by  the  Jewish  interpreta- 
tion. 

Isaiah  lii.  13,  "Behold  my  servant  shall  prosper,  he 
shall  be  exalted,  and  extolled,  and  be  very  high."  Inter- 
pretation— My  servant  Israel,  though  he  be  in  great  afflic- 
tion for  a  time,  yet  hereafter  shall  be  released  from  capti- 
vity, and  be  honoured  and  raised  to  elevation  very  high 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  (That  the  Jewish  nation 
is  spoken  of  in  the  singular  number,  and  under  the  title  of 
God's  servant  frequently  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  well 
known,  and  will  be  here  made  certain  by  a  few  examples. 
Isaiah  xli.  (the  chapter  preceding  the  prophecy)  "  But 
thou  Israel  my  servant,  thou  Jacob,  whom  I  have  chosen," 
presently  afterwards,  "  saying  to  thee,  thou  art  my  servant." 
Again,  chapter  xliv.  "  Now  therefore,  hear  Jacob  my  ser- 
vant," and  so  frequently  in  the  same  chapter.  See  also  ch. 
xlv.,  and  Jer.  ch.  xxx.,  and  Ps.  cxxxvi.,  and  Isaiah  through- 
out, for  similar  examples.) 

"  As  many  were  astonished  at  thee,  (his  visage  was  so 
marred,  more  than  any  man,  and  his  form  more  than  the 
sons  of  men,") — that  is — As  many  were  astonished  at  thee, 
on  account  of  thy  abject  state,  and  miserable  condition, 
being  squalid  with  misery,  and  suffering  more  than  any  men. 

"  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,  the  kings  shall  shut 
their  mouths  at  him  ;  for  that  which  had  not  been  told 
them  shall  they  see,  and  that  which  they  had  not  heard 
shall  they  consider." 

Interpretation — As  the  Gentiles  wondered  at  their  abject 
state,  so  as  to  make  them  a  proverb  of  reproach,  so  shall 
they  admire  at  their  wonderful  change  of  circumstances, 


44 

from  the  depth  of  degradation  to  the  height  of  prosperity, 
and  honour.  So  that  they  shall  lay  their  hands  upon  their 
mouths,  which  had  before  time  reproached  them,  when 
they  shall  see  their  felicity  to  be  so  far  beyond  what  had 
been  told  them,  and  they  shall  attentively  consider  it,  and 
they  shall  say  to  each  other — "  Who  hath  believed  our  re- 
port, and  the  arm  of  the  Lord  to  whom  was  it  revealed  ? 
For  he  grew  up,  (Heb.  not  "  he  shall  grow  up"  as  in  the 
English  version)  before  him  as  a  tender  plant,  and  as  a  root 
out  of  a  dry  soil,  he  had  no  form  nor  comeliness  :  and 
when  we  saw  him,  there  was  no  beauty  that  we  should  de- 
sire him." 

The  sense  is,  The  Gentiles  shall  say  to  each  other  in 
wonder,  "  Who  believed  what  we  heard  concerning  them  ? 
And  to  whom  was  the  interest  the  Lord  took  in  them  made 
known  ?  For  it  was  a  despised  people,  feeble,  and  wretched, 
like  a  tender  plant  springing  up  out  of  a  thirsty  soil.  Their 
appearance  was  abject,  and  there  was  nothing  attractive  in 
their  manners." 

"  He  was  despised  and  rejected  of  men,  a  man  of  sor- 
sows  and  acquainted  with  grief,  and  we  hid,  as  it  were  our 
faces  from  him;  he  was  despised,  and  we  esteemed  him 
not." 

That  is,  They  were  despised,  and  held  in  abhorrence, 
they  were  men  of  sorrow,  and  familiar  with  suifering.  WTe 
looked  upon  them  with  dislike,  we  hid  our  faces  from  them, 
and  esteemed  them  not. 

"Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our  sor-* 
rows." 

Interpretation — Surely  their  sufferings  are  as  great  as  if 
they  had  borne  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  ;  or,  they  are 
nevertheless  the  means  appointed  to  remove  the  sufferings 
of  an  afflicted  world,  for  God  hath  connected  universal 
happiness  with  their  prosperity  ;  and  the  end  of  their  suf- 
ferings is  the  beginning  of  our  joys. 

"  Yet  did  we  esteem  him  smitten  of  God,  and  afflicted." 

Interpretation — Nevertheless  we  considered  them  as  a 
God-abandoned  race,  and  devoted  to  wretchedness  by  him, 
for  having  crucified  their  king. 


45 

"  But  he  was  wounded  for,  (or  by)  our  transgressions,  he 
was  bruised  for  [or  by~\  our  iniquities,  the  chastisement  of 
our  peace  was  upon  him,  and  through  his  stripes  we  are 
healed." 

That  is,  But  instead  of  being  the  victims  of  God's  wrath, 
they  were  wounded  through  our  cruelty,  they  were  bruised 
by  our  iniquitous  treatment,  we  being  suffered  to  do  so 
to  chastise  them  for  their  sins,  and  to  prove  their  obedi- 
ence ;  and  this  chastisement  is  that  by  which  our  peace  is  to 
be  effected ;  for  their  chastisement  and  probation  being 
finished,  God  will  by  them  impart  and  diffuse  peace  and 
happiness. 

"  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone  astray,  we  have  turned 
every  one  to  his  own  way,  and  the  Lord  hath  caused  to  meet 
upon  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all." 

But  it  is  we  who  have  sinned  more  than  they,  we  have  all 
gone  astray  in  our  ignorance,  being  without  the  knowledge 
of  God,  or  of  his  Law.  Yet  the  Lord  hath  permitted  us  to 
make  them  the  subjects  of  our  oppressive  iniquity. 

"  He  was  oppressed,  [or  "  exposed  to  pecuniary  exac- 
tion^ and  he  was  afflicted,  yet  he  opened  not  his  mouth  ; 
he  was  brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep 
before  her  shearers  is  dumb,  so  he  opened  not  his  mouth. 
He  was  taken  from  prison  and  from  judgment,  and  who 
shall  declare  his  generation,  ["  into  his  manner  of  life,  who 
stoopeth  to  look  ?"  according  to  the  Hebrew]  for  he  was 
cut  off  out  of  the  land  of  the  living  ;  for  [or  by]  the  trans- 
gression of  my  people  was  he  stricken.  And  he  made  his 
grave  with  the  wicked :  but  with  the  rich  were  his  deaths 
[or  tomb]  because  he  had  done  no  violence,  neither  was  de- 
ceit in  his  mouth." 

Interpretation — How  passive  and  unresisting  were  they 
when  oppressed  !  they  were  afflicted,  and  they  complained 
not ;  when  through  false  accusations,  and  mistaken  cruelty 
they  were  plundered  and  condemned  to  die,  they  went  like 
a  lamb  to  the  slaughter,  and  as  a  sheep  before  her  shearers 
is  dumb,  so  they  opened  not  their  mouth.  They  were  taken 
from  the  dungeon  to  be  slain,  they  were  wantonly  massacred, 
and  every  man  was  their  foe  ;  and  the  cause  of  the  sufferers 


N  46 

who  condescended  to  examine  ?  for  by  the  thoughtless  crimes 
of  my  people,  they  suffered.  Yet,  notwithstanding  their 
graves  were  appointed  with  the  wicked,  yet  they  were  rich 
in  their  deaths  :  This  did  God  grant  them,  because  they 
had  not  done  iniquity. 

Rabbi  Isaac,  author  of  the  famous  Munimen  Fidei,  ren- 
ders the  original — "  on  account  of  impieties  was  he  given'to 
his  sepulchre,  and  on  account  of  his  riches  was  his  death, 
because  he  did  no  violence,  neither  was  deceit  in  his  mouth!" 
— which  he  interprets  thus.  We  (the  former  speakers) 
raised  against  them  false  accusations  of  impiety,  on  account 
of  their  religion,  and  refusing  to  worship  our  Idols,  but  their 
riches  were  the  real  cause  why  we  put  them  to  death.  Ne- 
vertheless they  used  no  violence  in  opposition  to  our  op- 
pressions, neither  would  they  forsake  their  religion,  and 
deceitfully  assent  to  ours  in  hypocrisy.* 

"  Yet  it  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him,  he  hath  put  him 
to  grief.  When  thou  shalt  make  his  soul  a  propitiation  for 
sin,  he  shall  see  hip  seed,  he  shall  prolong  his  days,  and  the 
pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  his  hands."  (This 
proves  that  this  prophecy  cannot  refer  to  any  individual,  but 
may  refer  to  the  Jeicish  nation,  because  one  individual  cannot 
be  put  to  death,  and  yet  "  see  his  seed,"  and  "  prolong  his 
days.)  "  After  (or  on  account  of)  the  travail  of  his  soul, 
seeing  he  shall  be  satisfied,  by  his  knowledge  shall  my 
righteous  servant  make  many  righteous  (or  show  them 
righteousness,)  and  he  shall  bear  the  burden  of  their  ini- 
quities." 


*  The  person  here  spoken  of  by  Isaiah  is  said  to  make  his  grave  with 
the  wicked,  and  be  with  the  rich  in  his  death.  Whereas  Jesus  did  exactly 
the  contrary.  He  was  with  the  wicked  (i.  e.  the  two  thieves)  in  his 
death,  and  with  the  rich  (i.  e.  Joseph  of  Arimathea)  in  his  grave  or 
tomb.  In  the  original,  the  words  may  be  translated  that  "  he  shall 
avenge  or  recompense  upon  the  wicked  his  Grave,  and  his  death  upon 
the  rich."  Thus  do  theTargum,  and  the  Arabic  version  interpret 
the  place  :  and  Ezekiel  ix,  10.  uses  the  verb  in  the  verse  in  Isaiah 
under  consideration  translated  (in  the  Knglish  version.)  "  He  made, 
&c."  In  the  same  sense,  given  to  this  place  in  Isaiah,  by  the  Targum, 
and  the  Jirabic,  as  said  above.  See  the  place  in  Ezekiel,  where  it  is 
translated — "  I  will  recompense  their  way  upon  their  head."  See 
also  Deut.  xxi.  8,  in  the  original.  The  Syriac  has  it — "  The  wicked 
contributed  to  his  burial,  and  the  rich  to  his  death."  The  Arabic — 
"  I  will  punish  the  wicked  for  his  burial,  and  the  rich  for  his  death." 
TheTargum,  "  he  will  send  the  wicked  into  Hell,  and  the  rich  who  pot 
him  to  a  cruel  Death." 


47 

*That  is,  after  and  for  their  sufferings,  they  shall  be  abun- 
vlantly  rewarded  ;  by  their  superior  knowledge  of  religious 
truth,  shall  they  make  many  wise,  "  for  many  nations  shall 
go,  and  say,  come  ye  and  let  us  ascend  to  the  mount  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob,  that  he  may  teach 
us  his  ways."  Mic.  4  ch. 

"  Wherefore  I  will  give  him  a  portion  with  the  Great,  and 
with  the  mighty  shall  be  divide  the  spoil,  because  he  poured 
out  his  life  unto  Death,  and  was  numbered  with  the  trans- 
gressors, and  himself  bare  the  sin  of  many,  and  interceded 
for  the  transgressors." 

Interpretation — Therefore  their  regard  shall  be  exceeding 
great,  because  for  the  sake  of  their  duty,  they  willingly  ex- 
posed themselves  to  death,  and  were  accounted  as  transgres- 
sors, and  bore  the  cruel  afflictions  inflicted  by  many,  and 
made  intercession  for  them  who  afflicted  them. 

Such  is  the  explication  given  by  the  Jews  of  this  pro- 
phecy. I  have  made  no  important  alterations  of  the  com- 
mon English  translations  ;  except,  that  in  some  passages,  I 
have  made  it  more  conformable  to  the  original,  by  substitut- 
ing a  verb  in  the  past  tense,  instead  of  leaving  it  in  the  fu- 
ture, as  in  the  English  version.  Those  Translators  have 
taken  certain  liberties  in  this  respect  to  make  this  pro- 
phecy (and  several  others)  more  accordant  to  their  own 
views,  which  are  not  supported  by  the  Hebrew  :  many  of 
these  expressions  however  we  have  left  unaltered,  as  they 
are  quite  harmless.  But  if  any  of  our  readers  desire  further 
information  with  regard  to  the  propriety  of  this  interpreta- 
tion of  this  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  we  refer  him  to  the  "  Muni- 
men  Fidei"  contained  in  Wagenseil's  "  Tela  Ignea,"  where 
he  will  find  it  amply  illustrated  and  defended.  Here,  in 
this  work,  we  shall  content  ourselves  with  proving  that  this 
prophecy  can,  by  no  means,  relate  to  Jesus  Christ,  from  these 
circumstances. — 1.  Jesus  certainly  was  not  exalted,  and  mag- 
nified, and  made  very  great  upon  Earth,  which  as  has  been 
shown,  was  to  be  the  scene  of  the  exaltation  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament Messiah,  but  was  put  to  a  cruel  and  disgraceful 


never 

taken  from  prison  to  die,  for  he  was  never  in  one. — 4.  He 
did  not  "  see  his  seed,"  nor  "  prolong  his  days,"  since  he 
died  childless,  and  we  will  not  permit  the  word  "  seed"  to' 


48 

be  spiritualized  on  this  occasion,  for  the  word  seed  in  the 
Old  Testament,  means  nothing  else  than  literally  '  children,1 
which  it  is  not  pretended  he  ever  had ;  and  how  could  he 
"  prolong  his  days,"  when  he  was  cut  off  in  his  33rd  year. 
5.  Besides,  who  were  "  the  strong  and  mighty"  with  whom 
he  divided  the  spoil?  were  they  the  twelve  fishermen  of 
Galilee  ?  and  what  was  the  spoil  divided  ?  In  a  word,  the 
literal  application  of  this  prophecy  to  Jesus,  is  now  given 
up  by  the  most  learned  Hebrew  Scholars,  who  allow,  that 
the  literal  sense  of  the  original  can  never  be  understood  of 
him.  See  Priestley's  notes  on  the  Scriptures,  in  loco ;  and 
the  context  before  and  after. 

We  have  now  come  to  the  last  subject  proposed  to  be  con- 
sidered in  this  chapter,  viz.  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  seventy 
weeks.  The  "  instar  omnium1'  of  the  prophetical  proofs  of 
Christianity  ;  and  which  was  for  ages  held  up  to  the  view 
of  "the  unbelieving  race,"  as  cutting  off,  beyond  doubt,  their 
'  hope  of  Israel'  from  ever  appearing,  since  the  time  so 
distinctly  foretold  had  elapsed.  But  such  is  the  instability 
of  human  opinions,  that  it  was  at  length  suspected,  and  at 
last  ascertained  by  the  learned,  that  "  the  stubborn 
Israelites"  had  some  reason  for  denying  that  prophecy,  any 
voice  in  the  affair. 

During  many  years,  one  learned  man,  after  another,  had 
amused  himself  with  destroying  the  system  of  his  predeces- 
sor, and  replacing  it  with  his  own,  not  a  whit  better,  but 
tending  to  the  same  end,  viz.,  to  make  the  prophecy  of  the 
seventy  weeks  tally  and  Jit  with  the  event  of  the  crucifixion. 
At  length  Marsham,  a  learned  Englishman,  declared  and 
demonstrated,  that  his  predecessors  in  this  inquiry  had  been 
grossly  mistaken,  for  that  the  prophecy,  in  all  its  parts,  was 
totally  irrelevant  and  irreconcileable  with  the  time  of  the  cru- 
cifixion. The  appearance  of  his  book  put  all  the  Theologians 
of  that  age  in  an  uproar !  But  many  learned  Christians  in 
the  last,  and  present  century,  now  freely  acknowledge,  that 
Daniel  is  not  on  their  side,  but  as  much  a  Jew  as  his 
brethren. 

This  celebrated  prophecy  literally  translated  from  the 
original  is  as  follows.  Dan.  ix.  24,  &c.  "  Seventy  weeks 
are  determined  upon  thy  people,  and  upon  thy  holy  city, 
to  finish  the  transgression,  and  to  make  an  end  of  sins,  and 
to  make  reconciliation  for  iniquity,  and  to  bring  in  ever- 


49 

lasting  righteousness,  and  to  seal  the  vision,  and  prophecy, 
and  to  annoint  the  most  Holy,  (i.  e.  the  sanctum  sanctorum, 
or  Holy  of  Holies.)  Know  therefore,  and  understand,  that 
from  the  going  forth  of  the  word  to  restore,  and  build  Jeru- 
salem, unto  the  anointed  Prince,  shall  be  seven  weeks  ; 
and  (in)  threescore,  and  two  weeks  the  street  shall  be  built 
again,  and  the  wall,  even  in  troublous  times.  And  after 
threescore  and  two  weeks  shall  the  anointed  (one)  be  cut 
off,  and  be  without  a  successor  :  (Heb.  "and  not,  or  none 
to  him,")  and  the  City  and  the  Sanctuary  shall  be  destroy- 
ed by  the  people  of  the  Prince  that  shall  come  ;  and  the 
end  thereof  shall  be  with  a  flood,  and  unto  the  end  of  the 
war  desolations  are  determined.  And  he  shall  confirm  the 
covenant  with  many  for  one  week,  and  half  the  week,  (i.  e. 
in  the  midst  of  the  week)  he  shall  cause  the  sacrifice  and 
the  oblation  to  cease,  and  for  the  overspreading  of  abomi- 
nations he  shall  make  it  desolate,  even  until  the  consumma- 
tion, and  that  (is)  determined  be  poured  upon  the  deso- 
late." 

This  is  the  prophecy  on  which  such  stress  has  been  laid, 
as  pointing  out  the  precise  time  of  the  coming  of  the  Mes- 
siah :  and  I  shall  fully  demonstrate  that  it  hath  not  the 
most  distant  reference  to  that  event.  And  for  the  better 
explanation  of  the  prophecy,  it  is  proper  that  we  attend  a 
little  to  the  context. 

*  In  the  preceding  chapter  of  Daniel  it  is  said,  that  when 
Daniel  was  informed  of  the  vision  of  the  two  thousand,  and 
three  hundred  days,  he  sought  for  the  meaning ;  but  not 
rightly  understanding  it,  he  judged,  that  that  great  number 
was  a  contradiction  to  the  word  of  God  as  delivered  by  Jere- 
miah, concerning  the  redemption  at  the  end  of  seventy 
years  :  (Jer.  xxv.  11,  12,  and  ch.  xxix.  10.)  and  from  thence 
he  concluded,  that  the  captivity  was  prolonged  on  account 
of  the  sins  of  the  Nation.  This  doubt  arose  from  his  not 
understanding  the  prophecy,  and  therefore  the  Angel  said 
unto  him,  "  1  am  now  come  forth  to  give  thee  skill,  and  un- 
derstanding." And  he  proceeds  to  inform  him,  that  as 
soon  as  he  began  to  pray,  and  God  saw  his  perplexity,  the 
royal  command  went  forth  from  him,  that  he  should  come 
to  Daniel  to  make  him  understand  the  truth  of  those  mat- 
ters, that  were  to  come  to  pass  in  future  time.  And  as  the 


*  The  remainder  of  this  chapter  is  taken  from  Levi,  and  Wagtnttil. 


50 

angel  Gabriel  had  explained  to  him  the  vision  from  whence 
his  doubt  arose,  it  was  incumbent  on  him  to  perfect  the  ex- 
planation :  and  that  is  what  is  meant  by  the  expression 
"  to  show,"  i.  e.  as  I  began  the  explanation,  the  command- 


ment was  that  I  should  finish  it. 

Before  I  proceed  to  give  the  Jewish  explanation  of  the 
prophecy,  it  is  proper  to  show  in  what  manner  the  answer 
of  the  angel  in  it  agreed  to  Darnel's  question,  and  also  the 
reason  of  his  using  the  term  weeks,  and  not  years,  or  times,1 
as  in  the  other  visions. 

It  appears,  that  Daniel,  from  the  words  of  Jeremiah, 
perceived  that  God  would  visit  all  the  nations,  arid  punish 
them  for  their  sins  ;  as  may  be  observed  from  the  follow- 
ing words.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  unto  me. 
Take  the  wine  cup  of  his  fury  at  my  hand,  and  cause  all 
the  nations  to  whom  I  send  thee  to  drink  it."  Jer.  xxv.  15. 
He  then  mentions  first  Jerusalem,  and  afterwards  the  Kings  of 
Egypt,  Tyre,  Sidon,  and  all  the  Isles  beyond  the  sea,  and 
many  others  ;  and  at  last  the  King  of  Sheshak  or  Babylon. 

He  also  further  perceived,  that  the  visitation  of  each  na- 
tion would  be  at  the  end  of  seventy  years,  as  Isaiah  observes 
of  Tyre  "and  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  that  Tyre  shall 
be  forgo  tten  seventy  years"  Isaiah  xxiii  15,  The  same  of  Ba- 
bylon. "  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  when  seventy  years  are 
accomplished,  I  will  punish  the  king  of  Babylon,5'  Jer.  xxv. 
12,  and  as  it  is  observed  in  the  next  verse,  "  All  that  is 
written  in  this  Book  which  Jeremiah  hath  prophesied, 
against  all  the  nations"  From  whence  it  appears,  that  as 
the  visitation  of  Babylon  was  to  be  in  seventy  years,  so  was 
that  of  the  other  nations  to  be  ;  for  so  had  the  wisdom  of 
God  decreed  to  wait  according  to  this  number.  For  which 
reason,  and  because  the  Prophets  say  that  the  restoration 
of  Israel  is  to  be  contemporaneous  with  the  destruction  of 
their  enemies,  Daniel  appears  to  have  judged,  that  the  sins 
of  his  nation  would  be  done  away  by  the  seventy  years  of 
the  captivity  of  Babylon.  And  therefore  the  Angel  in- 
formed him  of  his  error,  by  telling  him,  that  this  was  not 
to  be  the  case  with  his  nation  ;  for  that  their  wickedness 
was  come  up  before  God,  and  their  sin  was  very  grievous ; 
and  that  therefore  their  sins  would  not  be  atoned  for  by 
seventy  years,  as  in  the  case  of  the  rest  of  the  nations,  to 
whom  he  allowed  seventy  years  to  see  if  they  would  repent  ; 


51 

and  if  not,  then  he  will  punish  them.  But  as  for  Israel,  he 
would  not  only  wait  seventy  years,  but  seven  times  seventy 
years  ;  (for  thus  it  is  literally,  in  the  Heb.  the  words  trans- 
lated "  seventy  weeks,"  are  literally  " seventy  sevens")  after 
which,  if  they  had  not  repented  and  reformed,  their  king- 
dom should  be  cut  off,  and  they  return  into  captivity,  to 
finish  an  atonement  for  their  transgressions.  Hence  the 
cause  of  Daniel's  question  is  evident ;  and  the  propriety  of 
the  Angel's  answer  to  [the  question  is  manifest  ;  as  also 
the  expression  of  weeks  or  sevens. 

These  seventy  weeks  are  without  doubt  four  hundred  and 
ninety  years,  the  time  elapsed  from  the  destruction  of  the 
first  Temple,  till  the  destruction  of  the  second. 

This,  it  seems,  was  the  more  necessary  for  the  Angel  to 
inform  him  of;  because  Daniel  judged,  that  after  their  re- 
turn from  Babylon,  by  means  of  that  visitation  only,  all  their 
sins  would  be  done  away.  For  which  reason,  the  angel 
showed  him  that  it  would  not  be  so,  [for  the  return  from 
Babylon  was  not  a  perfect  redemption,  because  there  was  not 
a  general  collection  of  all  that  were  in  captivity,  even  all  the 
tribes,  save  only  a  few  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  and  those 
not  the  most  respectable.  And  after  their  return,  they  were 
not  free,  but  were  under  the  dominion  of  the  Persians, 
Greeks,  and  Romans.  And  although  they  at  one  time 
threw  off  their  yoke,  and  had  kings  of  the  Asmonean  and 
Herodian  families,  yet  was  there  no  king  among  them  of  the 
seed  of  David,  neither  had  they  the  Shekinah  nor  the  Urim 
and  Thummim,  all  which  is  a  manifestation  that  it  was  not 
a  perfect  redemption,  but  only  a  visitation  with  which  God 
was  pleased  to  visit  them ;  so  that  they  were  allowed  to  build 
a  Temple  to  the  Lord,  by  the  permission  of  Cyrus,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  measure  given  by  him.  This  was,  that  they 
might  be  the  better  enabled  to  do  the  works  of  repentance 
during  the  time  allowed,  and  thus  "  make  atonement ;  and 
thus  finish  the  transgression ;  and  make  an  end  of  sins ;  and 
make  reconciliation  for  iniquity;"  and  thus,  at  the  end  of 
the  time  assigned  even  "  seventy  weeks,"  they  would  bring 
in  "  everlasting  righteousness  ;"  i.  e.  universal  virtue  and 
felicity  throughout  the  world,  when  Jehovah  should  be 
known,  worshipped,  and  obeyed  by  all  mankind.  But  if 
they  did  not  repent,  and  amend,  if  they  did  evil,  as  their  fa- 
thers, then  their  kingdom  was  to  be  cut  off"  at  the  expiration 
of  the  seventy  weeks  ;  which  in  fact  took  place.~] 


52 

After  the  Angel  had  thus  expressed  himself  in  general 
terms,  he  descended  to  particulars  :  and  laid  down  three 
propositions  (if  I  may  be  allowed  the  term,)  or  periods. 

First.  "  Know  therefore,  and  understand,  (that)  from 
the  going  forth  of  the  word  to  restore,  and  build  Jerusalem, 
unto  the  anointed  Prince,  (shall  be)  seven  weeks." 

That  is,  it  shall  be  seven  weeks  or  forty  nine  years  from  the 
destruction  of  the  first  Temple,  to  Cyrus,  "  the  anointed 
Prince,"  who  shall  give  leave  to  build  the  second.  (With 
regard  to  the  import  of  the  phrase  "  the  going  forth  of  the 
word,"  I  refer  the  reader  to  Levi's  Letters  to  Priestley,  and 
shall  here  only  concern  myself  with  settling  the  meaning  of 
the  expression  of  "  the  anointed  Prince.")  Many  Chris- 
tians have  objected  to  the  term  Messiah,  or  anointed,  being 
applied,  as  in  our  interpretation  to  Cyrus  a  Heathen  Prince ; 
and  they  apply  it  themselves  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  But  that 
the  term  or  appellation  Messiah  can  be  applied  to  Cyrus  is 
evident ;  since  we  find  it  so  applied  by  God  himself  in  the 
xlv.  ch.  of  Isaiah.  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  to  his  anointed,  to 
Cyrus."  2.  It  is  a  singular  fact,  that  the  appellation  "  Mes- 
siah" is  never  applied  to  the  expected  deliverer  of  the  Israelites 
in  the  whole  Bible,  except  perhaps,  in  the  ii.  Psalm.  It  is  an 
appellation  indifferently  applied  to  Kings,  and  Priests,  and 
Prophets  ;  to  all  who  were  anointed,  as  an  induction  into 
their  office,  and  has  nothing  in  it  peculiar  and  exclusive  ;  but 
the  application  of  it  to  the  expected  Deliverer  of  Israel,  ori- 
ginated in  and  from  the  Targums.  3.  In  order  to  make  this 
prophecy,  and  this  phrase — "  Messiah  the  Prince,"  or  "  the 
anointed  Prince"  apply  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  Christians 
connect,  and  join  together  this  first  member  of  the  prophecy 
with  the  second,  in  open  defiance  of  the  original  Hebrew ; 
and  after  all,  they  can  reap  no  benefit  from  this  manoauvre ; 
for  the  term  '  Messiah  Nagid'  or — *  the  anointed  Prince,' 
can  never  apply  to  Jesus,  in  this  place,  at  any  rate  ;  because 
he  certainly  was  no  '  Prince  or  Naaid,'  a  word  which  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible  always,  without  exception,  denotes  a  Prince,  or 
Ruler,  one  invested  with  temporal  authority,  or  supreme  com- 
mand. Now,  as  it  is  allowed  on  all  hands,  that  Jesus  had  no 
such  temporal  power,  as  a  Prince  or  Ruler,  it  consequently 
follows,  that  he  can,  by  no  means,  be  the  "  anointed  Prince" 
mentioned  in  the  prophecy. 

Second  Period. — "  And  (in)  threescore  and  two  weeks, 


53 

the  street  shall  be  built  again,  and  the  wall,  even  in  trou- 
blous times." 

Here  the  Angel  gave  him  to  understand,  that  after  the 
seven  weeks  before  mentioned,  there  would  come  a  time  in 
which  the  building  would  be  hindered,  (and  which  was  on 
account  of  the  letter  written  by  Rheum,  and  Shimshai  to 
Artaxerxes ;  who,  in  consequence  thereof,  made  the  build- 
ing to  cease — See  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah,)  till  the  second  year 
of  Darius,  who  gave  leave  to  finish  the  building :  which  con- 
tinued till  the  Destruction  by  the  Romans,  sixty  two  weeks,  be- 
sides the  last  week,  &t  the  beginning  of  which,  the  Romans  came, 
and  warred  against  them,  and  at  length  entirely  destroyed  the 
cities  of  Judah,  Jerusalem,  and  the  Temple.  For,  from  the 
time  that  Cyrus  first  gave  leave  to  build  the  Temple,  till  its 
completion,  was  twenty  one  years  ;  and  its  duration  four  hun- 
dred and  twenty,  in  the  whole,  sixty  three  weeks,  or  four  hun- 
dred and  forty  one  years.  But  the  Angel  made  his  division 
at  sixty  two  weeks,  as  he  afterwards  described  what  was  to 
come  to  pass  in  the  last  week  (and  with  reason,  for  the  hor- 
rible Jewish  war  lasted  seven  years! )  And  by  the  words 
— "  in  troublous  times"  he  informed  Daniel,  that  during  the 
building  of  the  Temple,  they  would  have  continual  trouble, 
and  alarms  from  their  enemies,  as  is  mentioned  in  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah,  where  we  find,  that  while  some  worked,  the 
others  held  the  shield  and  spear.  And  even  after  finishing 
it,  they  were  almost  continually  in  trouble,  and  persecuted, 
as  is  evident  from  the  Books  of  Maccabees,  and  from 
Josephus. 

Third  Period. — "  And  after  threescore  and  two  weeks, 
shall  the  anointed  be  cut  off,  and  have  no  successor.  (Heb. 
"and  not  or  none  to  him".)  And  the  city,  and  the  sanc- 
tuary shall  be  destroyed  by  the  people  of  the  Prince  that 
shall  come ;  and  the  end  thereof  shall  be  with  a  flood,  and 
unto  the  end  of  the  war,  desolations  are  determined." 

That  is,  and  after  that  period,  shall  the  High  Priest  or 
("Me  anointed  one"}  be  cut  off, — [the  High  Priest  is  called 
"  Messiah"  witness  Lev.  iv.  3. — "  If  the  Messiah  Priest,  (or 
anointed  Priest)  doth  sin,  &c."] — and  have  no  succes- 
sor ;  and  the  City,  and  the  Temple  shall  be  destroyed  by 
Titus  and  the  Romans,  and  until  the  end  of  the  war,  your 
country  shall  be  swept  with  the  besom  of  destruction. 


54 

The  angel  finishes  the  prophecy  with  these  words,  "  And 
lie  (the  Prince  that  shall  come)  shall  strengthen  the  covenant 
with  many  for  one  week.  And  in  the  midst  of  the  week 
(i.  e.  the  seventieth  and  last  week,)  lie  shall  cause  the  sacri- 
fice and  the  oblation  to  cease." 

This  prediction  was  fully  accomplished  ;  for  1.  Titus 
"  the  Prince  that  should  come"  was  continually  offering 
peace  to  the  Jews,  and  tried  to  "  strengthen  the  covenant ;" 
i.  e.  their  old  treaties  made  with  the  Romans,  and  in  fact, 
did  bring  over  many.  2.  On  account  of  the  distress  of  the 
siege,  the  daily  sacrifice  did,  in  fact,  cease  to  be  offered  in 
the  temple  some  time  before  its  destruction  :  and  the  angel 
further  observes,  that  all  this  was  to  come  upon  them  for 
their  sins,  "for  the  overspreading  of  abominations  it  should 
be  made  desolate." 

This  is  what  appears  to  be  a  plain,  and  fair  explication, 
of  this  prophecy.  But  since  Christians  seeing  mention 
made  in  it  of  a  Messiah  to  be  cut  off",  have  eagerly  endea- 
voured to  press  it  into  their  service,  it  remains  for  me  to 
show,  that  it  is  impossible  to  make  this  prophecy  refer  to 
"  the  cutting  off"  of  Jesus. 

The  difficulty  that  learned  Christians  have  met  with  in. 
their  attempts  to  do  this,  will  be  easily  conceived  by  any 
person,  when  he  knows,  that  more  than  a  dozen  different 
Hypotheses  have  been  framed  by  them  for  that  purpose. 
But  that  they  have  lost  their  labour  will  be  obvious  from. 
this  single  observation,  that  "  the  anointed  one,  or  Messiah," 
who  the  Prophet  says  was  to  be  "  cut  off"  was  to  be  cut 
off  "  AFTER  the  threescore  and  two  weeks,"  i.  e.  at  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem,  or  within  the  seven  years  preceding 
that  event  !  Now  we  know  from  the  Evangelists,  and  from 
profane  History,  that  Jesus  was  crucified  more  than  40  years 
before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  In  addition  to  this,  no- 
thing need  be  said,  for  this  circumstance  lays  flat  their  inter- 
pretation at  one  stroke. 

Those  who  desire  to  see  a  more  elaborate  discussion  of 
this  prophecy,  and  an  ample  defence  of  this  interpretation, 
are  referred  to  "  Levi's  Letters  to  Priestly."  And  those 
who  are  desirous  of  seeing  an  account  of  the  various,  con- 
tradictory, perplexed,  and  multitudinous  contrivances  by 
which  it  has  been  endeavoured  to  apply  this  prophecy  to, 
Jesus,  are  referred  to  Prideaux,  Michaelis,  and  Blayney. 


55 

We  have  now  gone  through  an  examination  of  the  evi- 
dence adduced  from  the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  to 
prove  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and 
those  of  our  readers  who  love  truth,  are,  we  trust,  now 
made  sensible,  that  the  Religion  of  the  New  Testament,  if 
built  upon  such  proofs  as  these,  is  evidently  founded  on — a 
mistake. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Many  of  our  readers  have,  no  doubt,  heard  from  the  pul- 
pit many  exclamations,  and  declamations  against  "  the 
blindness  of  the  Jews,"  in  not  recognizing  their  Messiah 
in  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  The  reasons  of  this  "  Blindness" 
are  made,  I  think,  by  this  time,  pretty  intelligible. 

Nevertheless,  for  the  further  satisfaction  of  the  reader, 
I  will  here  set  down  the  principal  reasons  given  by  Rabbi 
Isaac  in  his  "  Munimen  Fidei,"  which  cause  the  Jews  to 
deny  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus. 

"  At  a  certain  time,  says  he,  a  certain  learned  man  of  the 
wise  men  of  the  Christians,  said  unto  me,  wherefore  are 
you  Jews  unwilling  to  believe  Jesus  of  Nazareth  to  be  the 
Messiah,  when  yet  your  veritable  Prophets  testified  of  him, 
whose  words  you  profess  to  have  faith  in." 

"  I  gave  him  this  answer.  '  How,  I  require,  could  we 
believe  him  to  be  the  Messiah,  when  you  can  produce  no 
genuine  proof  from  the  Prophets  in  his  favour  ?  since  all 
those  things  adduced  by  the  Evangelists  from  them  to  prove 
Jesus  the  Messiah,  are  nothing  to  the  purpose.  And  we 
have  many  and  evident  reasons,  to  prove  that  he  was  not 
the  Messiah.  And  of  these,  I  will  bring  forward  a  few, 
arising, — 1.  From  his  Genealogy.  2.  From  his  Works. 
3.  From  the  time  of  his  appearing.  4.  From  the  prophecies 
of  the  things  to  take  place  in  the  time  of  the  Messiah  not 
having  been  fulfilled  in  his  age.  And  in  these  things  are 
contained  the  genuine  marks,  characteristic  of  our  Messiah." 

*  1.  As  to  what  concerns  his  Genealogy,  it  does  not  prove 


56 

this  necessary  thing,  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of  David.  Be-r 
cause  he  was  not  begotten  by  Joseph,  as  the  Gospel  of  Mat* 
thew  testifies.  For  in  the  first  chapter  of  it,  it  is  written, 
that  Jesus  was  born  of  Mary  when  she  was  yet  a  Virgin,  and 
had  not  been  known  by  Joseph,  which  things  being  so,  the 
Genealogy  of  Joseph  has  nothing  to  do  with  Jesus.  The 
descent  and  origin  of  Mary  is  still  less  known,  but  it  seems 
from  Luke's  calling  Elizabeth  who  was  of  Levi,  her  cousin, 
that  Mary  was  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  not  of  Judah,  and 
consequently  not  of  David,  and  if  she  were,  still  Jesus  is  not 
more  the  Son  of  David,  descents  being  reckoned  from  the 
males  only.  Neither  is  the  Genealogy  of  Joseph  rightly  de- 
duced from  David,  but  labours  under  great  difficulties. — 
Matthew,  and  Luke  also,  not  only  disagree,  but  irreconcilably 
andjftatly  contradict  each  other  in  their  Genealogies  of  Joseph. 
Now,  it  cannot  be,  that  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses,  who 
directly  contradict  each  other  in  the  matter  to  be  proved  by 
them,  can  be  received  as  true.  But  the  prophets  have  directed 
us  to  expect  no  Messiah,  but  one  born  of  the  seed  of  David." 

<  2.  As  to  the  works  of  Jesus,  we  object  to  what  he  said 
concerning  himself.  "  Do  not  consider  me  as  come  to  esta- 
blish Peace  on  Earth,  for  I  have  come  to  send  a  sword,  and 
to  separate  the  Son  from  the  Father,  and  the  Daughter 
from  her  Mother,  and  the  Daughter-in- Law  from  her  Mo- 
ther-in-Law,"  which  words  are  written  Mat.  ch.  10.  But 
we  find  the  prophecies  concerning  the  Messiah  to  attribute 
to  him  very  different  works  from  these  ;  nay  the  very  op- 
posite. For  whereas  Jesus  testifies  concerning  himself,  that 
he  did  not  come  to  establish  Peace  in  the  Earth,  but  "  Divi- 
sion" "Fire,"  and  "Sword  ;"  Zechariah  says,  concerning  the 
expected  Messiah,  ch.  9, — "  He  shall  speak  Peace  to  the 
nations."  Jesus  says,  he  come  to  send  "  fire  and  sword" 
upon  the  Earth,  but  Micah  says,  ch.  2,  that  in  the  times  of 
the  true  Messiah,  "  they  shall  beat  their  swords  into  plough- 
shares, and  their  spears  into  pruning  hooks.  Nation  shall 
not  lift  up  sword  against  Nation,  neither  shall  they  learn 
war  any  more."  Jesus  says,  that  he  come  "  to  put  Divi- 
sion between  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  &c."  But  in  the 
time  of  the  true  Messiah,  Elias  the  Prophet  shall  come,  of 
whom  Malachi  prophesied  "  that  he  shall  convert  the  heart 
of  the  Fathers  unto  the  children,  and  the  heart  of  the  children 
to  the  Fathers."  Jesus  says,  "  that  he  come  to  serve  others, 
not  to  be  served  by  them,"  Mat.  xx.  28.  But  of  the  true 
Messiah  it  is  said,  Ps.  72, — "  All  kings  shall  bow  themselves 


57 

before  him,  all  nations  shall  serve  him."  The  same  also  is 
said  by  Zechariah,  ch.  9, — "  His  dominion  shall  be  from  one 
sea  to  the  other,  and  from  the  river  unto  the  ends  of  the 
Earth."  And  so  Dan.,  ch.  7, — "  All  dominions  shall  serve, 
and  obey  him." 

*  3.  As  to  the   Time,  we  object  to  the  Christians,  that 
Jesus  did  not  come  at  the  time  designated  by  the  Prophets. 
For  the  Prophets  testify  that  the  coming  of  the  Messiah 
should  be  "  in  the  end  of  Days"  or  in  the  latter  days,  (which 
surely  have  not  yet  arrived)  as  it  is  in  Is.  ch.  2.     "  It  shall 
come  to  pass  in  the  latter  days,  that  the  mountain  of  the 
Lord's  house  shall  be  established  in  the  top  of  the  moun- 
tains, and  all  nations  shall  flow  unto  it,"  and  it  immediately 
follows  concerning  the  king  Messiah,  "  that  he  shall  judge 
among  the  nations,  and  rebuke  many  peoples,  and  they  shall 
beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into 
pruning  hooks."     See  also  Hosea,  ch.  3,  and  also  Dan.  ch. 
2,  where  it  is  written.     "  God  hath  made  known  unto  king 
Nebuchadnezzer  what  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  latter  days" 
(or,  in  the  end  of  days.)     And  this  pertains  to  what  follows, 
viz.  to  this.     -« In  the  days  of  those  kings  (i.  e.  of  the  king- 
doms that  arose  out  of  the  ruins  of  the  Roman  Empire)  the 
God  of  Heaven  will  raise  up  a  kingdom,  which  shall  never 
be  destroyed.     Thus  you  see,  that  the  Prophets  predicted, 
that  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  should  be  after  the  de- 
struction of  the  Roman  Empire,  not  while  it  was  in  its  vi- 
gour, when  Jesus  came ;  in  '  the  latter  days,'  and  not  before.* 

4.  Besides  all  these  difficulties,  neither  were  the  promises 
made  to  us  by  the  Prophets,  concerning  the  things  to  come 
to  pass  at  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  fulfilled  in  the  time  of 

*  The  Reader  is  requested  to  consider  the  reasoning  in  the  last  para- 
graph.     The  prophecy  In  the  second  chapter  of  Daniel  is  commonly 
supposed  to  relate  to  the  four  Great  Empires,  the  Babylonian,  Persian, 
Grecian,  and  Roman.    This  last  it  is  (according  to  this  interpretation,) 
foretold  should  be  divided  into  many  Kingdoms,  and  that  '  in  the  latter 
days  of  these  Kingdoms'  (which  are  now  subsisting,}  God  would  set 
np  a  Kingdom  which   would  never  be  destroyed,  that  of  the  Messiah. 
Of  course,  according  to  this  interpretation,  the  Kingdom  of  the  Messiah 
was  not  to  be,  not  only,  not  till  after  the  destruction  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, but  not  till  the  latter  days  of  the  Kingdoms  which  grew  up  out  of 
its  ruins  ;  whereas  Jesus  Christ  was  horn  in  the  time  of  Augustus, 
i.  e.  precisely  when  the  Roman  Empire  itself  was  in  the  highest  of  its 
splendour,  and  vigour ;  this  is  a  remarkable,  and  verr  striking  repug- 
nance, to  the  claims  of  the  New  Testament,  and,  if  substantiated,  must 
overset  them  entirely. 


58 

Jesus.  For  examples,  take  the  following: — « 1.  In  the  time 
of  the  King  Messiah  there  was  to  be  one  kingdom  only, 
and  one  only  king  upon  earth,  viz.  the  King  Messiah,  see 
Dan.  ch.  2.  But,  behold,  we  see  with  our  eyes  many  inde- 
pendent kingdoms,  distinct,  and  distinguished  by  different 
Laws  and  Customs,  Religious  and  Political,  which  things 
being  so,  it  follows,  that  the  Messiah  is  not  yet  come.' 

«  2.  In  the  time  of  the  King  Messiah  there  was  to  be  only 
one  Religion,  and  one  Law  throughout  the  world.  For  it  is 
written  in  Isaiah,  ch.  52,  and  66,  that  all  nations  shall  come 
at  stated  times  to  worship  Jehovah  at  Jerusalem — see  also 
Zechariah,  ch.  14,  and  ch.  8,  and  indeed  throughout  the 
writings  of  the  Prophets.' 

*  3.  In  the  time  of  the  King  Messiah,  Idols  were  to  be  cut 
off,  and  utterly  to  perish  from  the  Earth,  as  it  is  said  in 
Zechariah,  ch.  13,  and  so  in  Is.,  ch.  2,  it  is  written — "  And 
the  glory  of  Idols  shall  utterly  pass  away,"  and  so  in  Zepha- 
niah,  ch.  2. — "The  Lord  shall  be  terrible  among  them, 
when  he  shall  make  lean  (i.  e.  bring  to  nothing)  all  the  Gods 
of  the  Earth,  and  all  the  countries  of  the  nations  shall  bow 
themselves  to  Him,  each  out  of  his  place." 

*  4.  In  the  times  of  the  Messiah  there  shall  obtain  no 
more  sins,  and  crimes  in  the  Earth,  especially  among  the 
children  of  Israel,' as  is  affirmed  in  Deut.  30,  Zephaniah,  ch. 
3,  and  in  Jeremiah,  ch.  3,  and  50,  and  so  also  in  Ezekiel, 
ch.  36  and  37. 

*  5.  In  the  times  of  the  Messiah  there  shall  be  peace  be- 
tween man  and  beast,  and  between  the  Tyger  and  the  tame 
beast     And  the  little  child  shall  stroke  with  impunity  the 
variegated  skin  of  the  serpent,'  (and  as  one   of  our  own 
Poets  has  beautifully   said, — 

"  And  with  his  forked  tongue  shall  innocently  play." — 

See  in  Is.,  ch.  11,  and  65,  the  original  from  whence  he  de- 
rived his  beautiful  Poem.) 

*  6.  In  the  time  of  the  King  Messiah  there  are  to  be  no 
calamities,  no  afflictions,  no  lamentations  throughout  the 
world :  But  the  inhabitants  thereof  are  to  lead  joyful  lives 
in  gratitude  to  the  good  God,  and  in  the  enjoyment  of  his 
bounties,  see  Is.  65. 


59 

« Lastly.  In  the  time  of  the  King  Messiah,  the  glory  of 
God  was  again  to  return  to  Israel,  and  the  spirit  of  the  most 
High  God  was  to  be  liberally  poured  out  upon  them,  and  they 
were  to  be  endowed  with  the  spirit  of  prophecy,  and  with 
wisdom,  and  knowledge,  and  understanding,  and  virtue,  and 
God  will  no  more  hide  his  face  from  them ;  but  will  bless 
them,  and  give  them  a  ready  heart,  and  a  willing  mind  to 
obey  his  Laws,  and  enjoy  the  felicities  consequent  there- 
upon. And  the  Schechinah  shall  inhabit  the  Temple  for- 
ever, and  the  Glory  of  God  shall  never  depart  from  Israel ; 
but  they  shall  walk  amid  the  splendours  of  the  Glory  of  Je- 
hovah, and  all  the  Earth  shall  resound  with  his  praise,  as  is 
written  in  Ezech.,  ch.  37,  and  39,  and  43,  and  in  Joel,  ch. 
2,  and  in  Zech.,  ch.  2,  and  in  Is.,  ch.  1 1,  and  throughout 
the  latter  part  of  his  prophecies,  and  in  Jer.  31.' 

And  now  Christian  Reader  !  let  me  ask  you  this  question, 
has  any  one  of  the  foregoing  prophecies  been  yet  fulfilled, 
either  in  the  days  of  Jesus,  or  ever  since  ? — Thou  canst  not  say 
it !  Now,  then,  hear  the  conclusion,  which  in  sincerity,  and 
with  the  hand  upon  the  heart,  I  am  compelled  to  draw  from 
these  precedents.  "  Since  these  distinctive  characteristics  pre- 
dicted by  the  Hebrew  Prophets,  as  to  be  found  in  their 
Messiah,  were  certainly,  and  evidently,  never  found  in  Jesus, 
and  since  these  conditions  and  circumstances,  and  many  others 
besides,  which  to  avoid  prolixity  have  been  omitted,  most  as- 
suredly did  not  take  place  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  nor  ever  since, 
and  since  they  were  according  to  those  Prophets,  certainly 
to  be  expected  in  the  time  of  their  Messiah,  therefore,  from 
all  this  it  seems  to  be  demonstrable,  (allowing  the  Prophets 
to  be  true, )  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  not  this  true  Mes- 
siah." And  I  would  ask  the  candid  Christian,  in  which 
link  of  this  chain  of  proofs  he  can  find  a  flaw  ?  and  I  would 
ask  him  too,  as  a  moral,  and  honest  man,  whether  any  Jew, 
in  his  right  mind,  could,  without  setting  at  nought  what  he 
conceived  to  be  the  word  of  God, — receive  him  as  the  Mes- 
siah ?  The  honest,  and  upright  answer,  I  believe  will  be, 
that  he  could  not  And  accordingly  it  is  very  well  known 
that  the  Jewish  Nation  have  never  done  so.  And  this,  their 
obstinacy  as  it  is  called,  will  not  by  this  time,  I  think,  appear 
unreasonable  to  any  sensible  man  ;  and  he  will  now  be  able 
duly  to  appreciate  the  justice  of  that  idle  cant  about  "the 
carnal  Jews ;"  and  their  "  worldly  minded"  expectation  of  a 
temporal  Prince,  as  their  Messiah.  Certainly,  the  Jews 
had  very  good  reason  from  their  prophecies  to  expect  no 


60 

Messiah,  but  a  Messiah  who  should  sit  on  the  throne  of 
David,  and  confer  liberty,  and  happiness  upon  them,  ancJ 
spread  peace,  and  happiness  throughout  the  earth  ;  and  com- 
municate the  knowledge  of  God,  and  virtue,  and  the  love  of 
their  fellow-men  to  every  people.  Whether  this  (carnal  or 
not,)  would  have  been  better  than  a  spiritual  kingdom,  and 
a  throne  in  Heaven ;  together  with  the  ample  list  of  Councils, 
Dogmas,  Excommunications,  Proscriptions,  Theological  Quar- 
rels, and  Frauds ;  and  an  endless  detail  of  Blood  and  Murder  ; 
I  leave  to  the  judgment  of  those  capable  of  deciding  for 
themselves. 

Neither,  in  fact,  is  it  true,  that  the  Jews  were  so  "  car- 
nally minded"  as  to  refuse  to  receive  Jesus  as  their  Messiah, 
because  he  was  poor  and  in  a  low  estate.  On  the  contrary, 
did  they  not  ask  him  to  come  out  of  his  evasions  ?  "  How 
long  (said  they)  dost  thou  mean  to  keep  us  in  suspense  ?  If 
thou  be  the  Messiah  tell  us  plainly  /"  These  very  men 
were  willing  to  hazard  in  his  favour,  their  fortunes,  their 
families,  and  their  lives  in  his  cause,  against  the  whole  power 
of  the  Roman  empire.  Nay,  so  urgent  were  they,  that 
they  were  going  to  make  him  their  king  by  force,  and  he 
concealed  himself  from  the  honour.  The  evasions  he  used 
to  avoid  their  pressing  questions  upon  the  subject,  are 
known  to  all  who  have  read  the  Evangelists  :  and  so  timid 
was  he  in  acknowledging  himself  as  the  Messiah,  that  he 
did  not  do  so,  till  Simon  Peter  told  him  that  he  was.  And 
can  any  candid  man,  after  all  this,  wonder  at,  or  condemn 
"  the  blindness,"  as  it  is  called,  of  the  Jews  ?  or  can  he  re- 
frain from  smiling  at  the  frothy  declamations,  in  which  di- 
vines load  that  nation  with  so  much  unmerited  reproach  ? 
These  Jews  had  just  reason,  we  think,  to  doubt  his  Messiah- 
ship  ;  and  they  had  a  right  to  satisfactory,  and  unambiguous 
proof  of  his  being  so  :  even  the  proofs  laid  down  by  their 
Prophets.  And  this  it  must  be  now  acknowledged  they 
wanted  ;  and  certainly,  the  wise  and  learned  of  the  Jewisn 
nation  might  be  allowed  to  have  understood  their  sacred 
books  upon  the  subject,  as  well,  at  least,  if  not  better,  than 
the  illiterate  Apostles,  who  manifestly  put  new  interpreta- 
tions upon  them,  and  those  confessedly,  not  agreeable  to 
the  obvious  and  literal  meaning  of  those  books  ;  but  con- 
trary to  the  sense  of  the  Jewish  nation.  And  for  this  scep- 
ticism they  might  plead  the  example  of  the  Apostles  them- 
selves, who,  at  first,  like  other  unbelieving  Jews,  expected 
a  temporal  Prince ;  and  did  disbelieve  Jesus  to  be  the  Mes- 


siah,  on  account  of  his  death,  notwithstanding  his  miracles. 
And  they  continued  in  these  thoughts,  till  it  seems  they 
came  to  understand  the  spiritual  sense  of  the  Scriptures  : 
which  spiritual  sense,  it  is  said,  they  obtained  by  "  the  tra- 
ditionary rules  of  interpretation  in  use  among  the  Jews." 
Yet  it  is  rather  inconsistent  and  singular,  that  they  should 
place  so  much  dependence  upon  these  traditionary  rules, 
and  yet  pay  so  little  regard  to  the  traditionary  explication  of 
the  Scriptures,  with  respect  to  the  temporal  kingdom  of  the 
Messiah.* 


*  The  sum  of  our  argument  may  be  expressed  thus.  God  is  repre- 
sented in  the  Prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  as  designing  to  send 
into  the  world  an  eminent  Deliverer,  descended  from  David,  the  peace 
and  prosperity  of  whose  reign  should  far  exceed  all  that  went  before 
him  ;  in  whom  all  the  glorious  things  foretold  by  the  Prophets  should 
receive  their  entire  completion  ;  and  who  should  be  distinguished  by 
the  character  of  the  Messiah  or  Christ.  This  is  an  article  of  faith 
common  to  Christians  and  Jews.  But  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  should 
be  esteemed  this  Messiah,  and  that  Christians  can  support  that  opinion 
by  alleging  the  prophecies  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  as  belonging  to, 
and  fulfilled  in  him,  is  what  we  can  by  no  means  allow,  and  that  espe- 
cially on  account  of  these  inconsistencies. 

1.  Because,  these  prophecies  acknowledged    on  both  sides  to  point 
out  the  Messiah,  could  not  otherwise  answer  the  end  of  inspiring  them 
than  by  an  accomplishment  so  plain  and  sensible,  as  might  sufficiently 
distinguish  the  person    meant  by  them  to  be  that   Messiah.      Bat  no 
such  accomplishment,  we  contend,  can  possibly  be  discerned  in  Jesus, 
and  consequently  he  cannot  be  the  person  meant  by  them. 

2.  Because  several  predictions,  which  Christians  apply  to  Jesus, 
are  wrested  to  a  meaning  which  quite  destroys  the  historical  sense  of 
Scripture,  and  breaks  the  connection  of  the  passages  from  whence  they 
are  taken.     Thus  many  shreds  and  loose  sentences  are  culled  out  for 
this  purpose,  which  do  not  appear  to  have  any  relation  to  Jesus,  or  to 
the  Messiah  either ;  but  to  have  received  their  proper  and  intended  com- 
pletion in  some  other  person,  whom  the  Prophet,  as  is  manifest,  had 
then  only  in  view. 

3.  Because,  in  their  forced  applications  of  the  prophecies,  Christians 
finding  themselves  hard  pressed  by  the  simple  and  natural  construc- 
tion, forsake  the  literal,  and   take   shelter   in    spiritual  and   mystical 
senses,  fly  to  Hyperboles,  and  strained  metaphors,  and  thus  expound 
the  true  meaning  and  importance  of  the  prophecies  quite  away  ;  the  in- 
tent whereof  being  to  instruct  men  in  so  necessary  a  point  of  faith  as 
that  relating  to  the  Messiah,  it  is  reasonable  to  think  they  would  be 
delivered  in  the  most  perspicuous  and    intelligible  terms.      Since  am- 
biguous expressions  (capable  of  such  strange  meanings  as  they  pretend) 
would  be  too  slippery  a  foundation  to  build  such  a  point  of  faith  upon  ; 
would  be  of  no  use,  or  worse  than  none  ;  would  be  unable  to  teach  the 
clear  truth,  and  apt  to  ensnare  men  in  dangerous  errors  by  leaving  too 
great  a  latitude  for  fanciful  interpretations,  and  introducing  darkness 
and  confusion,  and  contradiction  inexplicable. 

4.  Because,  admitting,  (as  indeed  it  never  was,  or  can  be  denied,) 
that   many   passages  of  Scripture,  and  of  prophetical  Scripture  espe- 
cially, mast  be  figuratively  taken  ;  yet  we  must  always  put  a  wide  dif- 

K 


62 


CHAPTER  IX. 

I  am  now  about  to  consider  a  subject,  to  which,  notwith- 
standing the  harshness  of  my  language  in  some  of  the  pre- 
ceding chapters,  I  approach  with  feelings  of  great  respect, 

ference  between  a  sense  not  just,  as  the  words  in  their  first  signification 
import,  and  a  sense  directly  the  contrary  of  what  they  import.  And 
yet  we  complain  that  this  latter  is  the  sense  which  Christians  labour  to 
obtrude  upon  the  gainsayers.  We  say,  that  a  kingdom  of  this  world 
and  not  of  this  world  ;  contempt  and  adoration  ,•  poverty  and  magnifi- 
cence j  persecution  and  peace  ;  sufferings  and  triumph  ;  a  cross  and  a 
throne  ;  the  scandalous  death  of  a  private  man  upon  a  gibbet,  and  the 
everlasting  dominion  of  a  universal  monarch,  must  be  reconciled,  and 
rneaa  the  self  same  thing,  before  the  prophecies  appealed  to,  can  do 
their  cause  any  service.  Granting  then,  that  the  goodness  of  God, 
(according  to  them,)  to  have  been  better  than  his  word,  by  giving 
spiritual  blessings,  instead  of  temporal,  yet  what  will  become  of  the 
truth  of  God,  if  he  act  contrary  to  his  word  ?  even  when  it  would  be 
for  our  advantage  ;  if  he  mislead  people  by  expressions,  which,  if 
they  mean  any  thing  at  all,  must  mean  what  the  Jews  understand  by 
them] 

In  short,  it  seems  to  me,  that  if  Providence  has,  in  truth,  any  concern 
•with  the  predictions  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  could  not  have  taken 
more  effectual  care  to  justify  the  unbelief,  and  obstinacy  of  the  Jews, 
than  by  ordering  matters  so,  that  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ, 
ehould  be  so  exactly,  and  so  entirely  the  very  reverse  of  all  those  ideas 
under  which  their  Prophets  had  constantly  described,  and  the  Hebrew 
nation  as  constantly  expected  their  Messiah,  and  his  coming  ;  and  to 
suppose  that  the  Supreme  Being  meant  to  describe,  and  point  out  such 
a  person  as  Jesus  Christ  by  such  descriptions  of  the  Messiah  as  are 
contained  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  certainly  substantially  to  accuse 
foim  of  the  most  unjustifiable  prevarication,  and  mockery  of  his  crea- 
tures. 

In  cider  that  the  subject  we  are  examining,  and  the  arguments  we 
make  use  of,  may  be  clearly  understood  by  the  reader,  he  is  requested 
to  bear  in  mind,  that  the  author  reasons  all  along  upon  the  supposed 
Divine  authority  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  is  admitted  by 
\ioth  Jews  and  Christians.  Whether  the  supernatural  claims  of  the 
Old  Testament  be  just,  or  not,  is  of  no  consequence  in  the  world  to 
the  controversy  we  are  considering  For  the  dispute  of  the  Jew  with 
the  Christian  is  one  thing,  and  his  dispute  with  the  sceptic  is  anoftier 
totally  different.  For  whether  such  a  personage  as  the  Messiah  is 
described  to  be,  has  appeared  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  is  quite  a 
different  thing  from  the  question,  whether  such  a  personage  will  ap- 
pear at  all.  The  Christian  says,  that  he  has  appeared  in  the  person 
c(  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  This  the  Jew  denies,  but  looks  forward  to  the 
future  fulfillment  of  the  promises  in  his  Bible.  While  the  Sceptic 
denies  that  the  Messiah  has  come,  or  ever  will. 

But  the  subject  at  present  under  consideration  is  the  dispute  of  the 
Jew  wi.h  the  Christian,  who  acknowledges  the  Old  Testament  to  be  a 
iievela'ion,  upon  which  a  new  Revelation,  that  of  the  New  Testament 


63 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  reproach  the  meek,  the  compassionate, 
the  amiable  Jesus,  or  to  attribute  to  him,  tjbe  mischiefs  oc- 
casioned by  his  followers.  No,  I  look  upo*n  his  character 
with  the  respect  which  every  man  should  pay  to  purity  of 
mprals :  though  mingled  with  something  like  the  sentiments 
which  we  naturally  feel  for  the  mistaken  enfhusiast.\  Jesus 

is  founded,  and  erected.  To  him  the  Jew  argues,  that  if  the  Old  Tes- 
tament be  a  Divine  Revelation,  then  the  New  Testament  cannot  be  a 
Revelation,  because  it  contradicts,  and  is  repugnant  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, the  more  ancient,  and  acknowledged  Revelation.  Now  God 
cannot  be  the  author  of  two  Revelations,  one  of  which  is  repugnant  to 
the  other.  One  of  them  is  certainly  false.  And  if  the  Christian,  con- 
scious of  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  the  New  with  the  Old  Testament, 
attempts  to  support  the  New,  at  the  expense  of  the  Old  Testament, 
upon  which  the  former  is,  and  was  built  by  the  founders  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  then  the  Jow  would  tell  him,  that  he  acts  as  absurdly  a  a 
would  the  man  who  should  expect  to  make  his  house  the  firmer;  by 
undermining,  and  weakening  its  foundation. 

So  that  whether  the  Christian  affirms,  or  denies,  he  is  ruined  either 
way.  For  he  id  reduced  to  this  fttal  dilemma.  If  the  Old  Testament 
contains  a  Revelation  from  God,  then  the  New  Testament  is  not  from 
God,  for  God  cannot  contradict  himself;  and  it  can  be  proved  abun- 
dantly, that  the  New  Testament  is  contradictory,  and  repugnant  to  the 
Old,  and  to  itself  too.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Old  Testament  con- 
tains no  Revelation  from  God,  then  the  New  Testament  must  go 
down  at  any  rate  ;  because  it  assert-?  that  the  Old  Testament  does  con- 
tain a  Revelation  from  Gcd,  and  builds  upon  it  as  a  foundation. 

|  There  was  nothing  which  gave  the  author,  in  writing  this  Book, 
BO  much  uneasiness,  as  the  apprehension  of  being  supposed  to  enter- 
tain disrespectful  sentiments  of  the  Founder  of  the  Christian  Religion. 
I  would  most  earnestly  entreat  the  reader  to  believe  my  solemn  assur- 
ances, that  by  nothing  that  I  have  said,  or  shall  be  under  the  necessity 
of  saying,  do  I  thick,  or  mean  to  intimate  the  slightest  disparagement 
to  the  moral  character  of  one,  whose  purity  of  morals,  and  good  inten- 
tions, deserve  any  thing  else  but  repioach.  That  he  was  an  enthusiast, 
I  do  not  doubt ;  that  he  was  a  wilful  impostor  I  never  will  believe.  And 
I  protest  before  God,  that  from  the  apprehension  above-mentioned 
alone,  I  would  have  confined  the  contents  of  this  volume  to  myself,  did 
I  not  feel  compelled  to  justify  myself  for  having  quitted  a  profession; 
and  did  I  not,  above  all,  think  it  my  duty,  to  make  a  well  meant  at- 
tempt, which  I  hope  will  be  seconded,  to  vindicate  the  unbelief  of  art 
unfortunate  nation,  who,  on  that  account,  have  for  almost  eighteen 
hundred  years,  been  made  the  victims  of  rancorous  prejudice,  the  most 
infernal  cruelties,  and  the  most  atrocious  wickedness.  If  the  Christian, 
religion  be,  in  truth,  not  well  founded,  surely  it  ia  the  duty  of  every 
honest,  and  every  humane  man,  to  endeavour  to  dispel  an  illusion, 
which  certainly  has  been,  notwithstanding  any  thing  that  can  be  said 
to  tho  contrary,  the  bona  fide,  and  real  cause  of  unspeakable  misery, 
and  of  repeated  and  remorseless  plundering,  and  massacres,  to  an 
unhappy  people  ;  the  journal  of  whose  sufferings,  on  account  of  it, 
forms  the  blackest  page  in  the  history  of  the  human  race,  and  the 
most  detestable  one  in  the  history  of  human  superstition. 


64 

of 'Nazareth  appears  to  have  been  a  man  of  irreproachable 
purity,  of  great  piety,  and  of  great  mildness  of  disposition. 
Though  the  world  has  never  beheld  a  character  exactly  pa- 
rallel with  his,  yet  it  has  seen  many  greatly  similar.  Con- 
templative and  melancholy,  it  is  said  of  him  by  his  followers, 
"  he  was  often  seen  to  weep,  but  never  to  laugh."  He  re- 
tired to  solitary  places,  and  there  prayed :  he  went  into  the 
wilderness  to  sustain,  and  to  vanquish  the  assaults  of  the 
devil :  In  a  word,  he  appears  by  such  means  to  have  per- 
suaded himself,  as  hundreds  have  done  since,  that  he  was 
the  chosen  servant  of  God,  raised  up  to  preach  righteous- 
ness to  the  hypocrites  and  sinners  of  his  day.  It  is  remark- 
able, that  he  never  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  till  encouraged 
to  assume  that  character  by  Peter's  declaration.  And  it  is 
observable,  that  in  assuming  that  name,  he  could  not  as- 
sume the  characteristics  of  the  august  personage  to  whom  it 
belongs  ;  but  infused  into  the  character  all  that  softness, 
meekness,  humility,  and  passive  fortitude,  which  were  so 
eminently  his  own.  The  natural  disposition  and  character 
of  Jesus  could  not  permit  him  to  attempt  the  character  of  a 
princely  Messiah,  a  mighty  monarch,  the  Saviour  of  an 
oppressed  people,  and  the  benefactor  of  the  human  race. 
He  could  not  do  this,  but  he  could  act  as  much  of  the 
character  as  was  consistent  with  his  own.  He  could  not 
indeed  bring  himself  to  attempt  to  be  the  Saviour  of  his 
countrymen  from  the  Romans,  their  Jleshly  foes  ;  but  he  un- 
dertook to  save  them  from  the  tyranny  of  their  spiritual  ene- 
mies. He  could  not  undertake  to  set  up  his  kingdom  upon 
earth  ;  but  he  told  them  that  he  had  a  kingdom  in  another 
world.  He  could  not  pretend  to  give  unto  his  followers  the 
splendid  rewards  of  an  earthly  monarch  :  but  he  promised 
them  instead  thereof,  forgiveness  oj  sins,  and  spiritual  remu- 
neration. 

In  a  word,  he  was  not  a  king  fit  for  the  « carnal  Jews,' 
but  he  was,  from  his  mildness,  and  compassionate  temper, 
worthy  of  their  esteem,  at  least,  of  their  forbearance.  The 
only  actions  of  his  life  which  betray  any  marks  of  character 
deserving  of  serious  reprehension,  are  his  treatment  of  the 
woman  taken  in  adultery  ;  and  his  application  of  the  pro- 
phecy of  Malachi  concerning  Elias,  to  John  the  Baptist. 

As  to  his  conduct  to  the  woman,  it  was  the  conduct  of  a 
mild,  and  merciful  man,  but  not  that  of  one  who  declared, 
"  that  he  came  to  fulfil  the  law."  For  God  commanded 


65 

concerning  such,  "  that  they  should  surely  be  put  to  death." 
Now  though  Jesus  was  not  her  judge,  and  had  no  right  to 
pronounce  her  sentence  ;  yet  the  contrivance  hy  which  he 
deterred  the  witnesses  from  testifying  against  her,  was  a 
contrivance,  directly  calculated,  totally  to  frustrate  the  ends 
of  justice  ;  and  which,  if  acted  upon  at  this  day,  in  Chris- 
tian countries,  would  infallibly  prevent  the  execution  of 
the  criminal  law  :  For  what  testimony  would  be  sufficient  to 
prove  a  fact,  if  the  witnesses  were  required  to  be  "  without 
sin  f '  Instead  therefore  of  saying  unto  them,  "  whosoever 
of  you  is  without  sin,  let  him  cast  the  first  stone  at  her  ;" 
he  should  have  said,  '  Men  !  who  made  me  a  judge,  or  a  di- 
vider over  you  ?  carry  the  accused  to  the  proper  tribunal.' 

As  to  his  conduct  about  the  matter  of  Elias,  it  was  as  fol- 
lows:— It  is  said,  in  the  17th  chapter  of  Matthew,  that  at  his 
transfiguration,  as  it  is  called,  Moses  and  Elias  appeared  to 
his  disciples  on  the  mount,  talking  with  Jesus.  Upon  com- 
ing down  from  the  mount,  the  disciples  asked  Jesus,  "  how 
say  the  Scribes  that  Elias  must  come  first,  (that  is,  before 
the  Messiah.)  Jesus  answered,  Elias  truly  cometh  first,  and 
restoreth  all  things ;  but  I  say  unto  you,  that  Elias  has  come 
already,  and  they  have  done  imto  him  what  they  would  ;" 
meaning  John  the  Baptist,  who  was  beheaded  by  Herod. — 
(See  the  parrallel  place  in  Mark.)  And  he  says,  concern- 
ing John,  (Mat.  xi.  14)  "  And  if  ye  will  receive  it,  this  is 
Elias  which  was  for  to  come" 

Now  certainly  no  one  will  pretend  that  John  was  the  Elias 
prophesied  of  by  Malachi,  as  to  come  before  «  the  great, 
and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord"  which  has  not  yet  taken  place. 
And  besides,  that  he  was  not  Elias  is  testified  of,  and  con- 
firmed by  John  himself,  who  in  the  gospel  of  John,  chapter 
1,  to  the  question  of  the  Scribes  asking  him,  "  if  he  was 
Elias  ?'  answers,  "  /  am  not"  It  is  pretty  clear  that  Jesus 
was  embarrassed  by  the  question  of  the  Apostles,  "  how  say 
the  Scribes,  that  Elias  must  come  first  ?"  for  his  answer  is 
confused ;  for  he  allows  the  truth  of  the  observation  of  the 
Scribes,  and  then  refers  them  to  John,  and  insinuates  that  he 
was  "  the  Elias  to  come."  However  it  must  be  acknow- 
ledged, that  he  does  it  with  an  air  of  hesitation,  "  if  ye  will 
receive  it"  &c. 

But  are  these  all  the  accusations  you  have  to  bring  against 
him  ?  may  be  said  by  some  qf  my  readers.  Do  you  account 


66 

as  nothing,  his  claiming  to  forgive  sins  ?  his  speeches  wherein 
he  claims  to  be  considered  as  an  object  of  religious  homage  ? 
if  not  to  be  God  himself  ?  Do  you  consider  these  impieties 
as  nothing  ?  I  answer  by  asking  the  following  questions  : 
What  would  you  think  of  a  man,  who,  in  our  times,  should 
set  up  those  extraordinary  claims  ?  and  who  should  assert, 
that  "  eating  his  fash,  and  drinking  his  blood"  were  necessary 
to  secure  eternal  life  f  Who  should  say,  that  "  he  and  God 
were  one  f  and  should  affirm  (as  Jesus  does  in  the  last  chap- 
ters of  John)  that  "  God  was  inside  of  him  and  dwelt  in 
him  ;"  and  that  "  he  who  had  seen  him,  had  seen  God  f" — 
What  should  we  think  of  this  ?  Should  we  consider  such 
a  man  an  object  of  wrath,  or  of  pity  ?  Should  we  not  di- 
rectly, and  without  hesitation,  attribute  such  extravagan- 
cies to  hallucination  of  mind  ?  Yes,  certainly !  and  there- 
fore the  Jews  were  to  blame  for  crucifying  Jesus.  If  Chris- 
tians had  put  to  death  every  unfortunate,  who,  after  being 
frenzied  by  religious  fasting  and  contemplation,  became 
wild  enough  to  assert,  that  he  was  Christ,  or  God  the  Fa- 
ther, or  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  even  the  Holy  Trinity,  they 
would  have  been  guilty  of  more  than  ffity  murders ;  for  I 
have  read  of  at  least  as  many  instances  of  this  nature ;  and 
believe,  that  more  than  two  hundred  such  might  be  reckoned 
up  from  the  hospital  records  of  Europe  alone.  And  that 
the  founder  of  the  Christian  religion  was  not  ahvays  in  his 
right  mind,  I  think,  will  appear  plain  to  every  intelligent 
physician  who  reads  his  discourses,  especially  those  in  the 
gospel  of  John.  They  are  a  mixture  of  something  that  looks 
like  sublimity  strangely  disfigured  by  wild  and  incoherent 
words.  So  unintelligible  indeed,  that  even  the  profoundest 
of  Christian  divines  have  never  been  able  to  fathom  all  their 
mysteries.  To  prove  that  I  do  not  say  these  things  rashly, 
wickedly,  or  out  of  any  malignity  towards  the  character  of 
Jesus,  which  I  really  respect  and  venerate,  I  will  establish 
my  assertions  by  examples.  For  instance — 

— Many  instances  might  be  adduced  of  conduct  directly 
subversive  of  the  very  design  to  promote  which,  he  said,  that 
he  was  sent  into  the  world.  For  example,  he  said,  that  he 
came  to  preach  glad  tidings  to  the  poor  and  uninformed  ; 
and  yet  he  declares  to  his  disciples,  that  he  spake  to  this 
very  multitude  ot  poor  and  ignorant  people  in  parables, 
lest  they  might  understand  him,  and  Le  converted  from  their 
sins,  and  God  should  heal  or  pardon  them-  In  the  26th  chap- 
ter of  Matthew,  Jesus  says,  to  his  disciples  in  the  garden  of 


67 

Gethsemane  these  strange  words,  "  Sleep  on  now,  and  take 
your  rest — Arise!  let  us  be  going"  The  commentators  en- 
deavour to  get  rid  of  the  strange  contradictoriness  of  these 
words,  by  turning  the  command  into  the  future  ;  and  render- 
ing the  Greek  word  translated  "  now,"  thus — "for  the  rest 
of  your  time,"  or  "for  the  future"  And  that  he  asked 
them  "  whether  they  slept  for  the  future"  ?  !  which  appears 
to  be  just  as  rational,  as  to  have  asked,  "  how  they  do  to- 
morrow" ?  ! 

Jo.  viii.  51,  "  Verily,  verily,  (said  Jesus)  I  say  unto  you, 
if  a  man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall  never  see  death"  Reader, 
what  dost  thou  think  of  this  saying?  Has  believing  in  the 
Christian  religion,  at  all  prevented  men  from  dying  as  iri 
aforetime  ?  And  should  we  be  at  all  astonished  at  what' 
the  Jews  said  to  him,  when  they  heard  this  assertion,  "  Then 
said  the  Jews  unto  him,  Now  we  know  that  thou  hast  a  de- 
mon (i.  e.  art  mad) — Abraham  is  dead,  and  the  Prophets, 
and  thou  sayest  if  a  man  keep  my  saying  he  shall  never 
taste  of  death  ?"  So  said  the  Jews,  and  if  in  our  times  a  man 
was  to  make  a  similar  assertion,  should  we  not  say  the  same  ? 

Many  instances  might  also  be  given  of  absurd  and  in- 
consequent reasoning ;  but  I  shall  only  adduce  the  follow- 
ing:— He  reproaches  the  Pharisees,  Luke  xi.  47,  48,  for 
building,  and  adorning  the  sepulchres  of  the  Prophets,  whom 
their  wicked  fathers  slew ;  and  says  to  them,  "  Your  fathers 
slew  them,  and  ye  build  their  sepulchres  ;"  and  he  adds, 
"That  thus  they  showed  that  they  approved  the  deeds  of 
their  fathers  !"  Surely  this  is  absurd  !  Did  the  Athenians, 
by  setting  up  a  statue  to  Socrates  after  his  unjust  death, 
show  to  the  world  that  they  "approved"  the  deed  of  them 
who  slew  him  ?  Did  it  not  show  the  direct  contrary  ?  And 
was  it  not  intended  as  a  testimony  of  their  regret  and  repen- 
tence. 

Again,  "  Upon  you  (says  Jesus  to  the  Jews)  shall  come 
all  the  righteous  blood  that  has  been  shed  upon  the  earth,  from 
the  blood  of  Abel,  the  righteous,  to  the  blood  of  Zechariah,'* 
&c.  Now  herein  is  a  marvellous  thing  !  How  could  a  man 
really  sent  from  God,  assert  to  the  Jews,  that  of  them  should 
be  required  the  blood  of  Abel,  and  of  all  the  righteous  slain 
upon  the  earth  ?  Did  the  Jews  kill  Abel?  or  did  their  fathers 
kill  him  ?  No  !  he  was  slain  by  Cain,  whose  posterity  all 
perished  in  the  deluge :  how  then  could  God  require  of  the 


68 

Jews,  who  lived  four  thousand  years  after  the  murder,  the 
guilt  of  it:  nay  more,  "of  all  the  righteous  blood  that  had 
been  shed  upon  the  earth,"  were  they  guilty  of  all  that  too? 
If  such  assertions,  and  suck  reasonings,  do  not  prove  what  I 
asserted,  what  can  ? 

.  It  is  said,  that  Jesus,  by  giving  himself  up  to  suffer  death, 
proved  the  truth  of  his  mission  and  doctrines,  by  his  readi- 
ness to  die  for  them.  But  this  is  an  argument  which  will 
recoil  upon  those  who  advance  it.  Are  there  no  instances 
upon  record  of  mild,  zealous,  and  amiable  men  who  preach- 
ed to  the  savages  of  America,  that  they  ought  to  worship  the 
Virgin  Mary  ?  and  did  they  not  cheerfully  die  by  the  most 
excruciating  torments  to  prove  it?  Yes,  certainly!  And  let 
any  Protestant  Christian  read  the  accounts  of  the  preaching, 
sufferings,  deaths.,  aye !  and  miracles  too,  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  missionaries  in  Asia  and  America;  and  then  let 
him  candidly  answer,  whether  he  is  willing  to  rest  the  issue 
of  his  controversy  with  the  Papists  upon  the  argument  of 
martyrdom  ?  We  all  know  the  power  of  enthusiasm  upon 
a  susceptible  mind ;  and  we  have  read  of,  and  perhaps  seen 
its  effects  in  producing  martyrdoms  among  people  or  all  re- 
ligions, in  all  parts  of  the  world.  Nay,  more,  such  is  the 
power  of  this  principle,  that  even  now,  women  in  India 
burn  themselves  alive,  on  the  funeral  piles  of  their  hus- 
bands, to  prove,  as  they  say,  their  love  for  them,  and  their 
determination  to  accompany  them  to  the  other  world ;  when 
it  is  well  known,  that  they  bum  themselves  from  the  impulse 
of  vanity,  and  the  fear  of  disgrace,  if  they  should  not  do  so. 
Nay  more  still,  so  little  support  does  martyrdom  yield  to 
truth,  that  there  are  more  martyrdoms  in  honour  of  the 
false,  rediculous,  and  abominable  idols  of  Hindostan,  than 
any  where  else.  You  may  see  men  hooked  through  the 
ribs,  and  supported,  and  whirled  round  in  the  air,  in  honour 
of  their  gods,  clapping  their  hands,  and  testifying  pleasure, 
instead  of  crying  out  with  pain.  You  may  see  in  that 
country,  the  misguided  enthusiastic  worshippers  of  missha- 
pen idols,  prostrate  their  bodies  before  the  enormous  wheels 
of  the  car  of  Seeva,  and  piously  suffering  themselves  to  be 
crushed  in  pieces  by  the  rolling  mass.  And  any  man  who 
has  been  upon  the  banks  of  the  Ganges,  can  tell  you  of  the 
Yoguis,  and  of  their  self-inflicted  torments,  compared  to 
which,  even  the  cross  is  almost  a  bed  of  roses.  Indeed  the 
argument  of  martyrdom  will  support  any  religion ;  and  it 
has,  in  fact,  been  cheerfully  undergone  by  enthusiasts,  and 


zealots  of  all  religions,  in  testimony  of  the  firm  belief  of  the 
sufferers  not  only  in  the  absurdities  of  Popery,  and 
Brachmanism,  but  of  every,  even  the  most  monstrous 
system  that  ever  disgraced  the  human  understanding. 
There  have  been  martyrs  for  Atheism  itself. 

This  argument  of  martyrdom  has  been  more  particularly 
applied  to  the  Apostles,  and  first  Christians.  "How 
can  it  be  imagined,  (say  Christian  Divines,)  that  sim- 
ple men  like  the  Apostles  could  be  induced  to  leave 
their  employment,  and  wander  up  and  down,  to  teach  the 
doctrines,  and  testify  to  the  facts  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  expose  themselves  to  persecution,  imprisonment, 
scourging,  and  untimely,  and  violent  death  :  unless  they 
certainly  knew,  that  both  the  doctrines,  and  the  facts  were 
true  ?  Besides,  what  honours,  what  riches,  could  they  ex- 
pect to  get  by  supporting  false  doctrine,  and  false  testi- 
mony. 

To  this  argument  I  might  reply  as  in  the  preceding 
pages,  for  I  would  ask,  have  we  not  seen  simple  and  honest 
men  quit  their  employments,  and  wander  up  and  down  to 
preach  doctrines  which  they  not  only  had  no  means  of 
certainly  knowing  to  be  true,  but  which  they  did  not  even 
understand  ?  Have  we  not  seen  such  men  submit  to  de- 
privations of  every  kind,  and  exposed  to  imprisonment,  and 
the  whipping  post  ?  And  do  we  not  certainly  know,  that 
some  such  have  cheerfully  suffered  a  most  cruel  death  ? 

Is  it  possible  !  that  any  sensible  man,  after  reading  the 
History  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Missionaries,  the  Baptists, 
the  Quakers,  and  the  Methodists,  can  be  convinced  of  the 
certain  truth,  of  the  Christian  religion,  or  seriously  endeavor 
to  convince  another  of  it,  by  such  an  argument  as  the 
above  ! 

But  much  more  than  this  can  be  said  upon  this  topic  ; 
for  it  can  be  shown,  that  the  Apostles  in  preaching  Chris- 
tianity, did  not  suffer  near  so  much,  as  some  well  meaning 
enthusiasts  in  modern  times  have  suffered,  to  propagate  re- 
ligious tenets  notoriously  false,  and  absurd.  And  that  the 
Apostles  could  expect  to  get  neither  fame,  nor  honour,  nor 
riches  by  their  preaching,  is  doubtful.  This  is  certain,  that 
they  could  not  lose  much.  For  they  were  confessedly 

L 


70 

men  of  the  lowest  rank  in  society,  and  of  great  poverty ; 
poor  fishermen,  who  could  not  feel  a  very  great  regard  for 
their  own  dignity  or  respectability.  And  it  was  by  no 
means  a  small  thing  for  such  men  to  be  considered  as  divine 
Apostles,  and  "  in  exchange  for  heavenly  things,"  to  have 
the  earthly  possessions  of  their  converts  "laid  at  their 
feet"  Peter  left  his  nets,  his  boat,  and  boorish  companions, 
and  after  persuading  his  disciples  to  receive  his  words  for 
oracles,  go  where  he  would,  he  found  ample  hospitality 
from  them.  This,  at  least,  was  an  advantageous  change,  ani 
though  they  did  not  acquire  fame  or  respect  from  the 
higher  ranks  of  society,  they  were  at  least  held  in  great 
respect  by  their  followers.  Neither  George  Fox,  nor  Whit- 
Jield,  nor  Westley  were  honoured  by  the  nobility,  or  gentry, 
or  scholars  of  England  ;  or  Ann  Lee,  by  the  most  respecta- 
ble citizens  of  the  United  States.  Yet  among  their  dis- 
ciples, the  Quakers,  the  Methodists,  and  the  Shakers,  they 
were  held  in  the  most  implicit  veneration,  and  can  any  man 
believe,  that  they  did  not  think  themselves  thus  well  paid, 
for  the  trouble  of  making  converts  ? 

It  is  true  that  the  Apostles  did  not  acquire  riches,  for 
'they  were  conversant  only  with  the  poor.  But  neither 
had  they  any  to  lose  by  taking  up  the  profession  of  Apos- 
tles and  Preachers.  At  least  by  preaching  the  gospel, 
they  obtained  food,  and  clothing,  and  contributions  ;  as  is 
evident  from  many  places  in  the  Epistles,  where  they 
write  to  their  converts,  "it  is  written,  'thou  shalt  not 
muzzle  the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  corn  ;' "  and  Paul- 
tells  them,  that  they  must  not  think  from  this  place,  that 
God  takes  care  for  oxen,  "  for,  (says  he,)  it  was  undoubted- 
ly written  for  our  sakes."  Thus  we  see  that  the  gospel 
was  by  no  means  altogether  unprofitable,  and  many  men 
daily  risk  their  lives  for.  less  gain  than  the  Apostles  did. 

As  to  the  dangers,  to  which  it  is  said  they  exposed 
themselves,  they  had  none  to  fear,  except  in  Judea,  which 
they  quickly  quitted,  finding  the  Jews  too  stubborn,  and 
went  to  the  Greeks.  From  the  Greeks,  and  likewise  from 
the  Romans,  they  had  not  much  to  fear,  who  were  not  very 
difficult  or  scrupulous  in  admitting  new  Gods,  and  new 
modes  of  worship.  Besides  this,  the  Romans  for  a  great 
while  seem  to  have  considered  the  Christians  merely  as  a 
Jewish  sect  who  differed  from  'the  rest  of  the  Jews  in  mat- 
ters not  worth  notice  ;  as  is  to  be  gathered  from  Tacit uf 


71 

and  Suetonius.  And  if  the  Apostles  did  speak  against  the 
Pagan  Gods,  it  was  no  more  than  what  the  Roman  poets 
and  philosophers  did  :  and  the  magistrates  were  not  then 
very  severe  about  it.  And  it  is  evident  from  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  that  the  Roman  praetors  considered  the  ac- 
cusations against  Paul  and  his  companions,  as  mere  trifles. 
But  in  Judea,  where  the  danger  was  evident,  it  was  other- 
wise. When  Paul  was  in  peril  there,  on  account  of  his 
transgressions  against  the  law,  after  being  delivered  from 
the  Jews  by  the  Roman  garrison  at  Jerusalem,  he  pleaded 
before  Festus  and  Agrippa,  that  he  was  falsely  accused  by 
the  Jews  ;  and  he  asserted  that  he  had  taught  nothing 
against  the  Law  of  Moses,  and  his  country,  but  that  he  only 
preached  about  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  ;  and  that  it 
was  for  this  that  the  Jews  persecuted  him  ;  and  ended  by 
appealing  to  Caesar.  When  yet  he  knew  that  this  was  not 
the  reason  of  the  hatred  of  the  Jews  against  him ;  but  that 
it  was  because  he  taught  that  circumcision,  and  the  Law  of 
Moses  were  abolished,  and  no  longer  binding  :  which  is  evi- 
dent to  any  who  will  read  the  Acts,  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians.  So  you  see  by  what  manceuvre  he  got  out  of 
the  difficulty  :  first,  by  at  least  equivocating,  and  then  by 
refusing  to  be  tried  by  his  own  countrymen,  and  appealing 
to  Caesar  ;  thus  securing  himself  a  safe  conduct  out  of 
Judea,  which  was  too  dangerous  for  him.  Among  the  Gen- 
tiles, their  doctrine  had  a  better  chance  of  success,  for  they 
taught  them  marvellous  doctrines,  such  as  they  had  been 
accustomed  to  listen  to,  viz.,  how  the  Son  of  God  was  born 
of  a  virgin,  and  was  cruelly  put  to  death  ;  and  that  his  Di- 
vine Father  raised  him  from  the  dead.  The  idea  of  God's 
having  a  Son  of  a  woman  did  not  shock  them,  for  all  their  de- 
mi-gods  they  believed  had  been  so  begotten ;  and  a  great  part 
of  their  poems  are  filled  with  the  exploits  and  the  sufferings 
of  these  heroes,  who  are  at  length  rewarded  by  being  raised 
from  earth  to  heaven,  as  Jesus  is  said  to  have  been. 
These  doctrines  were  not  disrelished  by  the  common  people, 
but  were  rejected  by  the  wise  and  learned.  Accordingly 
we  see  that  Paul  could  make  nothing  of  the  philosophers  of 
Athens,  who  derided  him,  and  considered  him  as  telling  them 
a  story  similar  to  those  of  their  own  mythology,  when  he 
preached  to  them  Jesus  and  the  resurrection.  And  in  re- 
venge we  see  Paul  railing  against  both  the  stubborn  Jews, 
and  the  incorrigible  philosophers,  as  being  unworthy  of 
knowing  "  the  hidden  wisdom,"  which  was  to  the  one  "a 


72 

stumbling  block,"  and  to  the  other,  "  foolishness,"  and  which 
he  thought  fit  only  for  "  the  babes,"  and  "  the  devout  wo- 
men," with  whom  he  principally  dealt. 

That  the  New  Testament  inculcates  an  excellent  mo- 
rality, cannot  be  denied  ;  for  its  best  moral  precepts  were 
taken  from  the  Old  Testament.  And  if  the  Apostles  had 
not  preached  good  morals,  how  could  they  have  expected 
to  be  considered  by  the  Gentiles  as  messengers  from  God  ? 
For  if  they  had  inculcated  any  immoralities,  such  as  rebel- 
lion, murder,  adultery,  robbery,  revenge,  their  mission 
would  not  only  have  been  disbelieved,  but  they  would  have 
undergone  capital  punishment  by  the  sentence  of  the  judge, 
which  it  was  their  business  to  avoid.  Mahomet.,  through- 
out the  Koran,  inculcates  all  the  virtues,  and  pointedly  re- 
probates vice  of  all  kinds.  His  morality  is  merely  the  pre- 
cepts of  the'  Old  and  New  Testaments,  modified  a  little, 
and  expressed  in  Arabic.  They  are  good  precepts,  and  al- 
ways to  be  listened  to  with  respect,  wherever,  and  by  whom- 
soever inculcated.  But  surely  that  will  not  prove  Islamism 
to  be  from  God,  nor  that  Mahomet  was  his  Prophet  ! 

That  the  Apostles  suffered  death  on  account  of  their 
preaching  the  gospel,  if  allowed  to  be  fact,  as  said  before, 
proves  nothing.  Many  have  suffered  death  for  false  and 
absurd  doctrines.  But  whether  any  of  the  Apostles,  (be- 
sides James  who  was  slain  by  Herod,)  died  a  natural,  or  a 
violent  death,  the  learned  Christians  do  not  certainly  knoio. 
For  there  is  extant  no  authentic  history  of  the  Apostles, 
besides  the  Acts.  There  are  indeed  many  fabulous  narra- 
tions published  by  the  Papists,  called  Marty  roloyies,  stuffed 
with  the  most  extravagant  lies,  which  no  learned  man  now 
regards  ;  and  who,  therefore,  will  credit  what  such  books 
say  of  the  Apostles  ?  Peter  is  said  in  them  to  have  been 
put  to  death  at  Rome  by  Nero,  nevertheless  most  of  the 
learned  men  of  the  Protestants  assert,  that  Peter  never  was 
in  Rome,  and  as  for  Paul,  no  one  certainly  knows  where,  when, 
or  how  he  "finished  his  days.  So  that  if  we  were  even  to 
allow  the  feeble  argument  of  Martyrdom  all  the  influence, 
and  weight  given  to  it,  it  would  not  apply  to  the  Apostles ; 
who,  we  are  sure  derived  some  benefit  by  preaching  the 
gospel,  and  are  not  sure  that  they  came  to  any  harm  by  it 

I  will  conclude  this  long  chapter,   by  laying  before  my 


73 

reader  some  extracts  from  the  book  written  by  Celsus,  a 
Heathen  philosopher,  against  Christianity,  preserved  by 
Origin  in  his  work  against  Celsus.  That  the  entire  work 
of  Celsus  is  lost,  is  to  be  regretted  ;  as  he  appears  to  have 
been  a  man  of  observation,  though  too  sarcastic  to  please  a 
fair  enquirer ;  and  from  the  picture  given  by  him  of  the 
first  Christians,  their  maxims,  and  their  modes  of  teaching, 
and  the  subjects  they  chose  for  converts,  it  appears,  that 
they  were  the  exact  prototypes  of  the  Methodists  and 
Shakers  of  the  present  day,  both  sects  which  contain  excel- 
lent people,  with  hardly  any  fault  but  credulity. 

"If  they  (i.  e.  the  teachers  of  Christianity,)  say  "  do 
not  examine"  and  the  like  ;  it  is  however  incumbent  on 
them  to  teach  what  those  things  are  which  they  assert,  and 
whence  they  are  derived." 

"  Wisdom  in  life  is  a  bad  thing,  but  folly  is  good." 

"  Why  should  Jesus,  when  an  infant,  be  carried  into 
Egypt,  lest  he  should  be  murdered  ?  God  should  not  fear 
being  put  to  death." 

"  You  say  that  God  was  sent  to  sinners  :  but  why  not 
to  those  who  are  free  from  sin  ?  What  harm  is  it  not  to 
have  sinned  ?" 

"  You  encourage  sinners,  because  you  are  not  able  to 
persuade  any  really  good  men:  therefore  you  open  the 
doors  to  the  most  wicked  and  abandoned." 

"  Some  of  them  say  '  do  not  examine,  but  believe,  and 
thy  faith  shall  save  thee." 

"  These  are  our  institutions,  say  they,  let  not  any  man 
of  learning  come  here,  nor  any  wise  man,  nor  any  man  of 
prudence :  for  these  things  are  reckoned  evil  by  us.  But 
whoever  is  unlearned,  ignorant,  and  silly,  let  him  come 
without  fear  !  Thus  they  own  that  they  can  gain  only  the 
foolish,  the  vulgar,  the  stupid,  slaves,  women,  and  chil- 
dren." 

"  At  first,  when  they  were  but  few,  they  agreed.  But 
when  they  became  a  multitude,  they  were  rent  again,  and 


74 

again,  and  each  will  have  their  own  factions  :  for  factious 
spirits  they  had  from  the  beginning." 

"  All  wise  men  are  excluded  from  the  doctrine  of  their 
faith  ;  they  called  to  it  only  fools,  and  men  of  a  servile 
spirit." 

"  The  preachers  of  their  Divine  Word  only  attempt  to 
persuade  silly,  mean,  senseless  persons,  slaves,  women,  and 
children.  What  harm  is  there  in  being  well-informed  ;  and 
both  in  being,  and  appearing  a  man  of  knowledge  ?  What 
obstacle  can  this  be  to  the  knowledge  of  God  ?  Must  it  not 
be  an  advantage  ?" 

"  We  see  these  Itinerants  shewing  readily  their  tricks  to 
the  vulgar,  but  not  approaching  the  assemblies  of  wise  men 
nor  daring  there  to  show  themselves.  But  wherever  they 
see  boys.,  a  crowd  of  slaves,  and  ignorant  men,  there  they 
thrust  in  themselves,  and  show  off  their  doctrine." 

"You  may  see  weavers,  tailors,  and  fullers,  illiterate 
and  rustic  men,  not  daring  to  utter  a  word  before  persons 
of  age,  experience,  and  respectabili ty  ;  but  when  they  get 
hold  of  boys  privately,  and  silly  women,  they  recount  won- 
derful things ;  that  they  must  not  mind  their  fathers,  or 
their  tutors,  but  obey  them  ;  as  their  fathers,  or  guardians 
are  quite  ignorant,  and  in  the  dark  ;  but  themselves  alone 
have  the  true  wisdom.  And  if  the  children  obey  them, 
they  pronounce  them  happy,  and  direct  them  to  leave  their 
fathers,  and  tutors,  and  go  with  the  women,  and  their  play- 
fellows, into  the  chambers  of  the  females,  or  into  a  tailor's, 
or  fuller's  shop,  that  they  may  learn  perfection." 

Celsus  compares  a  Christian  teacher  to  a  quack — "  who 
promises  to  heal  the  sick,  on  condition  that  they  keep  from 
intelligent  practitioners,  lest  his  ignorance  be  detected." 
i 

"  If  one  sort  of  them  introduces  one  doctrine,  another, 
another,  and  all  join  in  saying  *  Believe  if  you  would  be 
saved,  or  depart  .•'  what  are  they  to  do,  who  desire  really  to 
be  saved  ?  Are  they  to  determine  by  the  throw  of  a  die, 
where  they  are  to  turn  themselves,  or  which  of  these  de- 
manders  of  implicit  faith  they  are  to  believe  ?" 

Omitting  what  Celsus  says  reproachfully  of  the  moral 


75 

characters  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  first  teachers  of  Chris- 
tianity, for  which  we  certainly  shall  not  take  his  word  ;  it 
is  easy  to  perceive  from  the  above  quotations,  that  they  had 
more  success  among  simple,  and  credulous  people,  than 
among  the  intelligent,  and  well-informed.  Their  introduc- 
tory lesson  to  their  pupils,  was,  "  Believe,  but  do  not  ex- 
amine ;"  and  their  succeeding  instructions  seem  to  have 
been  a  continued  repetition,  and  practice  of  the  dogma  of 
implicit  faith.* 


CHAPTER  X. 

MATTHEW,  ch.  v.,  Jesus  says,  "  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was 
said,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  and  hate  thine  enemy." 
But  this  is  no  where  said  in  the  Law  or  the  Prophets ;  but, 
on  the  contrary,  we  read  directly  the  reverse.  For  it  is  written, 
Ex.  xxiii.  "  If  thou  find  the  ox  of  thine  enemy,  or  his  ass 
going  astray,  thou  shalt  certainly  bring  him  back  to  him." 
"  If  thou  seest  the  ass  of  him  that  liateth  thee  lying  under 

*  Jerom,  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  says, 
that  "The  Church  of  Christ  was  not  gathered  from  the  Academy,  or 
the  Lyceum,  but  from  the  lowest  of  the  People."  (Vili  Plebecula.) 
And  Ccecilius'  in  Minutius  Felix,  says,  that  the  Christian  assemblies 
were  made  op  "de  ultima  fece  collectis,  imperitoribus,  et  mulieribua 
credulis  sexus  suae  facilitate  labentibus,"  i.  e.  "  that  they  consisted  of 
the  lowest  of  the  mob,  simple  and  unlearned  men,  and  credulous  wo- 
men." 

The  president  of  a  province  is  introduced  by  Prudenuus  as  thus  ad- 
dressing a  martyr. 

"  Tu  qui  Doctor,  ait,  seris  novellum 
Comment!  genus,  ut  LEVES  PUELL.E, 
Lucos  destituunt,  Jovem  relinquant  ; 
Damnes,  si  sapias,  ANILE  DOGMA.." 

The  Christian  Fathers  confess,  and  glory  in  it,  that  the  greater  part 
of  their  congregations  consisted  of  women  and  children,  slaves,  beggars, 
and  vagabonds. 

The  Jewish  Christians  were,  as  appears  evidently  from  the  New 
Tastament,  exceedingly  poor,  and  therefore  there  is  frequent  mention 
made  of  contributions  for  "  the  poor  Saints  at  Jerusalem."  From 
thence  it  was  that  the  Jewish  Christians  got  the  name  of  Ebionites,  i  e. 
Poor.  The  Jewish  Christian  Church  consisted  of  the  dregs  of  the 
Jewish  people,  simple  and  ignorant  men,  Samaritans,  &c.  No  person 
in  Judea  of  eminence,  or  learning,  appears  to  have  joined  the  sect  of 
the  Nazarenes,  except  Paul  ;  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  they 
gradually  dwindled  in  number,  and  became  extinct. 


76 

his  burden,  and  wouldst  forbear  to  help  him,  thou  shalt 
surely  help  him."  Again,  Levit.  xix.,  "  Thou  shalt  not  hate 
thy  brother  in  thine  heart,  rebuke  thy  neighbour,  nor  suffer 
sin  upon  him.  Thou  shalt  not  revenue,  nor  keep  anger,  (or 
bear  any  grudge,)  against  the  children  of  thy  people,  but 
thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself,  I  am  the  Lord." 
So  also  in  Prov.  xxxiv.  "  When  thine  enemy  falleth,  do  not 
triumph,  and  when  he  stumbleth,  let  not  thine  heart  exult." 
So  also  in  ch.  xxv.  "  If  thine  enemy  hunger,  give  him  food, 
if  he  thirst,  give  him  to  drink."  These  precepts  are  to  the 
purpose,  and  are  practicable  ;  but  this  command  of  Jesus, 
"  Love  your  enemies"  if  by  loving,  he  means,  "  do  them 
good"  it  is  commanded  in  the  above  passages  in  the  Hebrew 
Law.  But  if  by  " love"  he  means  to  look  upon  them  with 
the  same  affection  that  we  feel  for  those  who  love  us,  and  with 
whom  we  are  connected  by  the  tenderest  ties  of  nature,  and 
friendship,  the  command  is  impracticable  ;  and  the  fulfill- 
ment of  it  contrary  to  nature,  and  those  very  instincts  given 
us  by  our  Creator.  And  therefore,  whoever  thinks  he  ful- 
fills, really  fulfills  this  command,  does  in  fact  play  the  hy- 
pocrite unknown  to  himself ;  for  though  we  can,  and  ought 
to  do  good  to  our  enemy,  yet  to  love  him  is  as  unnatural  as 
to  hate  our  friends. 

In  Mark  ch.  ii.  25,  Jesus  says  to  the  Pharisees,  "  Have 
ye  not  read  what  David  did  when  he  hungered,  and  those 
that  were  with  him.  How  that  he  entered  into  the  house 
of  the  Lord,  in  the  time  of  Abiathar  the  High  Priest,  and 
did  eat  of  the  shew-bread,  &c."  See  the  same  also  in  Mat- 
thew, ch.  xii.  3.  Luke  vi.  3.  Now  here  is  a  great  blunder : 
for  this  thing  happened  in  the  time  of  Achimelech,  not  in 
the  time  of  Abiathar;  for  so  it  is  written,  1  Sam.  xxi.  "and 
David  came  to  Nob,  to  Achimelech  the  Priest,  &c."  And 
in  the  22nd  chapter  it  is  said  that  Abiathar  was  his  son. 

In  Luke  ch.  1.  26, the  Angel  Gabriel  is  said  to  have  come 
from  God  to  Mary,  when  she  was  yet  a  virgin,  espoused  to 
Joseph,  who  was  of  the  house  of  David,  and  announced  to 
her  that  she  should  conceive,  and  bear  a  son,  and  should 
call  his  name  Jesus ;  that  her  holy  Offspring  should  be  call- 
ed the  Son  of  God,  and  that  God  should  give  unto  Him 
*'  the  throne  of  David  his  Father,  and  that  he  should  rule 
the  house  of  Jacob  forever,  and  that  to  his  kingdom  there 
should  be  no  end."  Now  this  story  is  encumbered  with 
many  difficulties,  which  I  shall  not  consider  ;  but  confine 


77 

myself  to  asking,  Wherefore,  if  these  things  were  true,  did 
not  the  Mother  of  Jesus  and  his  brethren,  knowing  these 
extraordinary  things,  obey  his  teachings  ?  For  it  is  certain, 
that  they  did  not  at  first  believe  him,  but,  as  appears  from 
the  7th  chap,  of  John,  derided  him.  Besides,  neither  did  his 
mother  nor  his  brethren,  when  they  came  to  the  house 
where  he  was  preaching  to  simple  and  credulous  men,  come 
for  the  purpose  of  being  edified,  but  "  to  lay  hold  of  him," 
to  carry  him  home,  for  said  they  he  is  mad,  or  "  beside 
himself,"  (Mark  iii.  21)  which  certainly  they  would  not 
have  dared  to  do,  if  this  story  of  Luke  were  true.  For 
their  mother  would  have  taught  them  of  his  miraculous 
conception,  and  extraordinary  character.  Moreover,  how 
was  it  that  God  did  not  give  him  the  throne  of  David,  as 
was  promised  by  the  Angel  to  his  Mother  ?  For  he  did  not 
sit  upon  the  throne  of  David,  nor  exercise  any  authority  in 
Israel.  Moreover,  how  comes  it  that  David  is  called  the 
Father  of  Jesus,  since  Jesus  was  not  the  son  of  Joseph, 
who,  according  to  the  Evangelists  drew  his  origin  from  that 
King.  Finally,  the  saying  "  that  to ,  his  kingdom  there 
should  be  no  end,"  is  directly  contradicted  by  Paul  in  the 
1st  Ep.  to  the  Cor.  ch.  xv:  for  he  says  therein  "that  Jesus 
shall  render  up  his  kingdom  unto  the  Father,  and  be  him- 
self subject  unto  him."  Here  you  see,  that  the  kingdom  of 
Jesus  is  to  have  an  end  ;  for  when  he  renders  up  his  king- 
dom to  the  Father,  he  certainly  must  divest  himself  of  his 
authority.  How  then  can  it  be  said,  that  "  to  his  kingdom 
there  shall  be  no  end  ?" 

Jesus  says,  John  v.  89,  "  And  the  Father  himself  which 
hath  sent  me,  hath  borne  witness  of  me  ;  ye  have  neither 
heard  his  voice  at  any  time,  &c."  But  how  does  this  agree 
with  Moses,  who  says,  Deut  iv.  33,  "  Did  ever  People 
hear  the  voice  of  God  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  fire,  as 
thou  hast  heard  ?" — "  And  we  heard  his  voice  out  of  the 
midst  of  the  fire ;  we  have  seen  this  day,  that  God  doth 
talk  with  man,  and  he  liveth."  Deut  v.  24. 

Luke,  ch.  4,  17,  "And  they  gave  to  Jesus  the  Book 
of  Isaiah  the  Prophet,  and  he  opened  the  Book,  and  found 
this  place,  where  it  was  written,  <  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is 
upon  me,  therefore  hath  he  anointed  me  ;  to  preach  the 
Gospel  to  the  poor  hath  he  sent  me,  that  I  should  bind  up 
the  broken  in  heart,  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives,  and 


78 

tight  to  the  blind  ;  that  I  should  preach  the  acceptable  year 
of  the  Lord.'  And  shutting  the  Book,  he  gave  it  to  the 
minister,  and  afterwards  addressed  them,  saying,  This  day 
is  this  Scripture  fulfilled  in  your  ears."  Here  you  see  the 
words  which  gave  offence  ;  and  by  turning  to  Is.  in  loco, 
chap.  Ixi  you  may  see  the  reason  why  the  inhabitants 
of  Nazareth  arose  up  in  wrath  against  him.  For  1. 
these  words  ailed  <*ed  in  Luke,  are  somewhat  perverted 
from  the  original  in  Isaiah  :  for  these  words,  "  and  sight 
to  the  blind,"  are  not  in  Isaiah,  but  are  inserted  in 
Luke  for  purposes  very  obvious.  And  2.  he  neglects 
the  words  following,  "  and  the  day  of  vengeance  of  our 
God,  and  of  consolation  to  all  who  mourn.  To  give 
consolation  to  the  mourners  of  Zion  ;  to  give  them  beauty 
instead  of  ashes,  and  the  oil  of  joy  instead  of  grief ;  a  gar- 
ment of  praise  instead  of  a  broken  heart,  &c."  to  the  end 
of  the  chapter.  From  this  it  is  very  clear,  that  this  prophecy 
has  no  reference  to  Jesus  :  but  Isaiah  speaks  these  things 
of  himself ;  and  the  words  "the  Lord  hath  anointed  me," 
signifying,  "  God  hath  chosen,  established  me  to  declare" — 
what  follows.  This  exposition  of  anointing  is  confirmed 
from  these  passages.  1  Kings,  xix  ch.  "  Anoint  a  Prophet 
in  thy  stead,"  where  the  sense  is,  "  constitute  a  Prophet  in 
thy  place."  Again,  "  touch  not  mine  anointed  ones,  and 
do  my  Prophets  no  harm,"  i.  e.  "Touch  not  my  chosen 
servants  ;"  and  so  in  several  other  places.  The  meaning, 
therefore,  of  Isaiah  is,  that  God  had  appointed,  and  con- 
stituted him  a  Prophet  to  announce  these  consolations  to 
the  Israelites,  who  were  to  be  in  captivity,  in  order  that 
they  should  not  despair  of  liberation  ;  and  that  they  should 
have  hope,  when  they  read  these  comfortable  words  spoken 
by  the  mouth  of  Isaiah,  at  the  command  of  God.  For  he 
calls  the  subjects  of  his  message  "  the  broken  in  heart," 
"the  captives,"  "the  mourners  of  Zion,  &c."  all  which  terms 
are  applicable  only  to  the  Israelites.  That  this  is  the  true 
interpretation,  will  be  made  further  evident  to  any  impar- 
tial person,  by  reading  the  context  preceding,  and  follow- 
ing. 

Jo.  ch.  ii.  v.  18.  "The  Jews  said  to  Jesus,  what  sign 
shewest  thou  to  us,  that  thou  doest  these  things  ?  Jesus 
answered  and  said  unto  them,  Destroy  this  temple,  and 
in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up.  The  Jews  answered,  say- 
ing, forty  and  six  years  was  this  temple  in  building,  and 
wilt  thou  build  it  in  three  days  ?"  The  Jews  could  never 


79 

have  spoken  these  words  here  related  :  for  the  temple  then 
standing  was  built  by  Herod,  who  reigned  but  thirty-seven 
years,  and  built  it  in  eight  years.  This,  therefore,  must  be 
a  blunder  of  the  Evangelist. 

Jo.  xiii.  v.  21.  Jesus  says  to  his  Disciples,  "  a  new  com- 
mandment I  give  unto  you,  that  ye  love  one  another."  This 
is  not  true,  for  the  love  of  man  towards  his  neighbour,  was 
not  a  new  precept  but  at  least  as  ancient  as  Moses,  who  gives 
it  Levit.  xix.  as  the  command  of  God,  "  Thou  shalt  love  thy 
neighbour  as  thyself." 

:9  -•••>'.         .         ,  - 

Acts  vii,  v.  4.  When  he  (Abraham)  went  out  of  the  land 
of  the  Chaldees,  he  dwelt  in  Charran  ;  fi  om  thence  after 
hisfatlier  was  dead,  he  led  him  into  this  land  in  which  ye 
dwell."  This  directly  contradicts  the  chapter  in  Genesis 
where  the  story  of  Abraham's  leaving  Haran  is  related  ;'for 
it  is  certain  from  thence,  that  Abraham  left  his  father  Terah 
in  Haran  alive  when  he  departed  thence.  And  he  did  not 
die  till  many  years  afterwards.  This  chronogical  contra- 
diction has  given  much  trouble  to  Christian  Commentators, 
as  may  be  seen  in  Wliitby,  Hammond,  &c.  &c. 

V.  14,  Stephen  says,  "Jacob  therefore  descended  into 
Egypt,  and  our  Fathers,  and  there  died.  And  they  were 
carried  to  Sichem,  and  buried  in  the  sepulchre  which  Abra- 
ham bought  from  the  Sons  of  Hemor  the  Father  of  Sicnem.'* 
Here  is  another  blunder  ;  for  this  piece  of  land  was  not  pur- 
chased by  Abraham,  but  by  Jacob,  Gen.  xlix.  29  :  so  also 
see  the  end  of  Joshua.  But  it  is  evident,  that  Stephen  has 
confounded  the  story  of  the  purchase  of  the  field  of  Mach- 
palah,  recorded  in  Gen.  xxiii.  with  the  circumstances 
related  concerning  the  purchase  by  Jacob. 

In  v.  43  of  the  same  chapter,  there  is  another  disagree- 
ment between  Stephen's  quotation  from  Amos,  and  the  ori- 
ginal, which  see. 

So  also  there  is  in  the  speech  of  James,  Acts  xv.  a  quo- 
tation from  Amos,  in  which  to  make  it  fit  the  subject, 
(which  after  all  it  does  not  fit,)  is  the  substitution  of  the 
words,  the  remnant  of  men,  for  the  words,  "  remnant  of 
Edom,"  as -it  is  in  the  original. 

All  these  mistakes,  besides  others  to  be  met  with  in  al- 


80 

most — I  was  going  to  say  in  every  page,  of  these  Histories 
of  Jesus  and  his  Apostles,  sufficiently  show  how  superficial 
was  the  acquaintance  of  these  men  with  the  Old  Testament, 
and  how  grossly,  either  through  design  or  ignorance,  they 
have  perverted  it.  Indeed  from  these  mistakes  alone,  I 
should  be  led  strongly  to  suspect,  that  the  Books  of  the 
New  Testament  were  written  by  Gentiles,  as  I  can  hardly 
conceive  that  any  Jew  could  have  quoted  his  Bible  in  such 
a  blundering  manner. 


CHAPTER  XL 

A  very  great  part  of  Dogmatic  Theology  among  Chris- 
tians, is  founded  upon  the  notion,  that  the  Jewish  Law  was  a 
temporary  dispensation,  only  to  exist  till  the  coming  of  Je- 
sus, when  it  was  to  be  superceded  by  a  more  perfect  dispen- 


On  the  contrary,  the  Jews  are  persuaded  that  their  Law 
is  of  perpetual  obligation,  and  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
itself  is  hardly  more  offensive  to  them,  and,  as  they  think, 
more  contradictory  to  the  Scriptures,  than  the  notion  of  the 
abrogation  of  it  Now  that  the  Jews  are  on  the  right  side 
of  this  question,  i.  e.  arguing  from  the  Old  Testament,  I 
shall  endeavour  to  prove  by  several  arguments.  They  are 
all  comprised  in  these  positions,  1.  That  the  Mosaic  In- 
stitutions are  most  solemnly,  and  repeatedly  declared  to  be 
perpetual  ;  and  we  have  no  account  of  their  being  abrogated, 
or  to  be  abrogated  in  the  Old  Testament  2.  They  are  de- 
clared to  be  perpetual  by  Jesus  himself,  and  were  adhered 
to  by  the  twelve  apostles. 

1.  Nothing  can  be  more  expressly  asserted  in  the  Old 
Testament,  than  the  perpetual  obligation  of  those  rites, 
which  were  to  distinguish  the  Jews  from  other  nations.  It 
appears  for  instance  ^from  the  17  ch.  of  Genesis,)  in  the 
tenor  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  that  circumcision 
was  to  distinguish  his  posterity  to  the  end  of  time.  It  is 
called  "  an  everlasting  covenant;"  to  be  kept  by  his  posterity 
through  all  their  generations.  See  the  chapter  where  the 
^condition  of  the  covenant  is,  that  God  would  give  to  Abraham, 


81 

and  his  posterity  the  perpetual  inheritance  of  the  promised 
land  with  whatever  privileges  were  implied  in  his  being  their 
God,  on  condition  that  their  male  children  were  circum- 
cised, in  testimony  of  putting  themselves  under  that  cove* 
nant  There  is  no  limitation  with  respect  to  time  ;  nay  it  is 
expressly  said  that  the  covenant  should  be  perpetual 

The  ordinance  of  the  Passover  is  also  said  to  be  perpetual, 
Ex.  xii.  14,  &c,  "And  this  day  shall  be  unto  you  for  a 
memorial,  and  you  shall  keep  it  as  a  feast  to  the  Lord 
throughout  your  generations.  You  shall  keep  it  a  feast  by 
an  ordinance  forever."  This  is  repeated  afterwards,  and 
the  observance  of  this  rite  is  confined  to  Israelites,  Pro- 
selytes, and  Slaves  who  should  be  circumcised,  v.  48. 

The  observance  of  the  Sibbath  was  never  to  be  discon- 
tinued, Ex.  xxxi.  16.  "  Wherefore  the  children  of  Israel 
shall  keep  the  Sabbath  throughout  their  generations,  for  a 
perpetual  covenant.  It  is  a  sign  between  me  and  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel/orewr." 

The  appointment  of  the  Family  of  Aaron  to  be  Priests, 
was  to  continue  as  long  as  the  Israelites  should  be  a  nation^ 
see  Lev.  vii.  35. 

The  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  to  be  forever,  Lev.  xxiii. 
41.  "  It  shall  be  a  statute  forever,  in  your  generations." 
The  observance  of  this  Festival  is  particularly  mentioned 
in  the  prophecies,  which  foretell  a  future  settlement  of  the 
Jews  in  their  own  land,  as  obligatory  on  all  the  word  ;  as 
if  an  union  of  worship  at  Jerusalem  was  to  be,  according  to 
them,  effected  among  all  nations  by  the  united  observance 
of  this  Festival  there,  see  Zech.  14  ;  what  he  there  says  is 
confirmed  by  what  Isaiah  prophesied  concerning  the  same 
period,  Is.  2.  "  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  that 
the  mountain  of  the  Lord's  house  shall  be  established  in 
the  top  of  the  mountains,  and  shall  be  exalted  above  the 
hills,  and  all  nations  shall  flow  unto  it.  And  many  people 
shall  go,  and  say,  Come  ye,  and  let  us  go  up  to  the  moun- 
tain of  the  Lord,  to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob,  and  he 
will  teach  us  of  his  ways,  and  we  will  walk  in  his  paths  For 
out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth  the  Law,  and  the  word  of  the 
Lord  from  Jerusalem.  And  he  shall  judge  among  the  na- 
tions, and  rebuke  many  people,  and  they  shall  beat  their 
swords  into  ploughshares,  and  their  spears  into  pruning 


hooks.     Nation  shall  not  lift  up  sword  against  nation, 
neither  shall  they  learn  war  any  more." 

With  respect  to  all  the  Laws  of  Moses,  it  is  evident  from 
the  manner  in  which  they  were  promulgated,  that  they 
were  intended  to  be  of  perpetual  obligation  upon  the  He- 
brew nation,  and  that  by  the  observance  of  them  they  were 
to  be  distinguished  from  the  other  nations,  see  Deut.  xxvi. 
16. 

The  observance  of  their  peculiar  Laws  was  the  express 
condition  on  which  the  Israelites  were  to  continue  in  pos- 
session of  the  promised  land ;  and  though  on  account  of 
their  disobedience  they  were  to  be  driven  out  of  it,  they 
had  the  strongest  assurances  given  them  that  they  should 
never  be  utterly  destroyed,  like  many  other  nations 
who  should  oppress  them ;  but  that  on  their  repen- 
tance, God  would  gather  them  from  the  remote  parts 
of  the  world,  and  bring  them  to  their  own  country 
again.  And  both  Moses,  and  the  later  Prophets  as- 
sure them,  that  in  consequence  of  their  becoming  obedi- 
ent to  God  in  all  things,  which  it  is  asserted  they  will,  (and 
which  may  be  the  natural  consequence  of  the  Discipline 
they  will  have  gone  through,)  they  shall  be  continued  in 
the  peaceable  enjoyment  of  the  land  of  promise,  in  its 
greatest  extent  to  the  end  of  Time,  see  to  this  purpose 
Deut.  iv.  25,  &c.  also  Deut.  30,  where  it  is  thus  written. 

"  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  all  these  things  are 
come  upon  thee,  the  blessing  and  the  curse,  which  I  have 
set  before  thee,  and  thou  shalt  call  them  to  mind  among  all 
the  nations  whither  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  driven  thee  ; 
and  shalt  return  unto  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  shalt  obey  his 
voice  according  to  all  that  I  command  thee  this  day,  thou 
and  thy  children,  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul; 
that  then  the  Lord  thy  God  will  turn  thy  captivity,  and 
have  compassion  upon  thee,  and  will  return,  and  gather 
thee  from  all  the  nations  whither  the  Lord  thy  God  hath 
scattered  thee.  If  any  of  thine  be  driven  out  unto  the  ut- 
most parts  of  heaven,  from  thence  will  the  Lord  thy  God 
gather  thee,  and  from  thence  will  he  fetch  thee.  And  the 
Lord  thy  God  will  bring  thee  unto  the  Land  which  thy  Fa- 
thers possessed,  and  thou  shalt  possess  it,  and  He  will  do 
thee  good,  and  multiply  thee  above  thy  Fathers.  And  the 
Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thy  heart,  and  the  heart  of 


83 

thy  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart,  and 
with  all  thy  soul,  that  thou  mayest  live  ;  and  the  Lord  thy 
God  will  put  all  these  curses  upon  thine  enemies,  and  on 
them  that  hate  thee,  which  persecuted  thee.  And  thou  shalt 
return,  and  obey  the  voice  of  the  Lord,  and  do  all  his  com- 
mandments which  I  command  thee  this  day,  Sfc." 

"  What  an  extent  of  prophecy,  and  how  firm  a  faith  in 
the  whole  of  it  do  we  see  here  !  (says  Dr.  Priestley)  The 
Israelites  were  not  then  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  It  was  oc- 
cupied by  nations  far  more  numerous,  and  powerful  than 
they  ;  and  yet  it  is  distinctly  foretold  in  the  4th  ch.  that 
they  would  soon  take  possession  of  it,  and  multiply  in  it : 
and  that  afterwards  they  would  offend  God  by  their  idola- 
try, and  wickedness,  and  would  in  consequence  of  it  be 
driven  out  of  their  country  ;  and  without  being  exter- 
minated or  lost,  be  scattered  among  the  nations  of  the 
world  ;  that  by  this  dispersion,  and  their  calamities,  they 
would  at  length  be  reformed,  and  restored  to  the  divine  fa- 
vour, and  that  then  (as  in  the  quotation)  in  the  latter  days 
they  would  be  gathered  from  all  nations,  and  restored  to 
their  own  country,  when  they  would  observe  all  the  laws 
which  were  then  prescribed  to  them.  Past  history  and  present 
appearances  correspond  with  such  wonderful  exactness  to' 
what  has  been  fulfilled  of  this  prophecy,  that  we  can  have 
no  doubt  with  respect  to  the  complete  accomplishment  of 
what  remains  to  be  fulfilled  of  it" 

What  was  first  announced  by  Moses  is  repeated  by 
Isaiah,  and  other  Prophets,  assuring  them  of  their  certain 
return  wherever  dispersed,  to  their  own  land  in  the  latter 
days  ;  and  that  they  should  have  the  undisturbed  posses- 
sion of  it  to  the  end  of  time. 

It  has  been  objected,  that  the  term  "forever"  is  not  al- 
ways to  be  understood  in  its  greatest  extent,  but  is  to  be 
interpreted  according  to  circumstances.  This  for  the  sake 
of  saving  time  I  will  acknowledge.  But  the  circumstances 
in  which  this  phrase  is  used  in  the  passages  already  ad- 
duced, and  in  a  number  of  others  of  similar  import  which 
might  be  adduced,  clearly  indicate,  that  it  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  those  passages  to  mean  a  period  as  long  as  the 
duration  of  the  Israelitish  nation,  which  elsewhere  is  said  to 
continue  to  the  end  of  the  world. 


84 

For  this  reason,  among  others,  this  final  return  of  the 
Jews  from  their  dispersed  state,  cannot  at  any  rate  be  said 
to  have  been  accomplished  at  their  return  from  the  Baby- 
lonish captivity. 

For  that  captivity  was  not  by  any  means  such  a  total  dis- 
persion of  the  people  among  all  nations,  as  Moses,  and  the 
later  Prophets  have  foretold.  Nor  does  their  possession  of 
the  country  subsequent  to  it  at  all  correspond  to  that  state 
of  peace,  and  prosperity,  which  was  promised  to  succeed 
this  final  return. 

Figures  of  speech  must  no  doubt  be  allowed  for.  But 
if  the  whole  of  the  Jewish  polity  was  to  terminate  at  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Titus,  (as  is  maintained  by 
Christians,)  while  the  world  is  still  to  continue,  the  magnifi- 
cent promises  made  to  Abraham,  and  his  posterity,  and  to 
the  nation  in  general  afterwards,  have  never  had  any  proper 
accomplishment  at  all :  because  with  respect  to  external  pros- 
perity, which  is  contained  in  the  promises,  many  nations 
have  hitherto  been  more  distinguished  by  God,  than  the 
Jews.  Hitherto  the  posterity  of  Ishmael  has  had  a  much 
happier  lot  than  that  of  Isaac.  To  say,  as  Christians  do, 
that  these  prophecies  have  had  a  spiritual  accomplishment 
in  the  spread  of  the  Gospel,  when  there  is  nothing  in  the 
phraseology  in  which  the  promises  are  'expressed,  that 
could  possibly  suggest  any  such  ideas,  nay  when  the  pro- 
mise itself  in  the  most  definite  language  expresses  the  con- 
trary, is  so  arbitrary  a  construction  a&,nothing  can  warrant 
By  this  mode  of  interpretation,  any  event  may  be  said  to  be 
the  fulfillment  of  any  prophecy  w/iatever. 

Besides,  it  is  perfectly  evident,  that  these  prophecies, 
whether  they  will  be  fulfilled,  or  not,  cannot  yet  have  been 
fulfilled.  For  all  the  calamity  that  was  ever  to  befall  the 
Jewish  nation  is  expressly  said  to  bear  no  sensible  proportion 
to  their  subsequent  prosperity  :  whereas,  their  prosperity 
has  hitherto  borne  a  small  proportion  to  their  calamity  ;  so 
that  had  Abraham  really  forseen  the  fate  of  his  posterity,  he 
would,  on  this  idea,  have  had  little  reason  to  rejoice  in  the 
prospect 

It  may  be  said,  that  the  prosperity  of  the  descendants  of 
Abraham,  was  to  depend  on  a  condition,  viz.  their  obedience, 


85 

and  that  this  condition  was  not  fulfilled.  But  besides  that 
the  Divine  Being  must  have  foreseen  this  circumstance, 
and  therefore  must  have  known  that  he  was  only  tantalizing 
Abraham  with  a  promise  which  would  never  be  accomplish- 
ed ;  this  disobedience,  and  the  consequences  of  it  are  ex- 
pressly mentioned  by  Moses,  and  the  other  Prophets,  only 
as  a  temporary  thing,  and  what  was  to  be  succeeded  by  an 
effectual  repentance,  and  perpetual  obedience  and  pros- 
perity. 

Among  others,  let  the  following  prophecy  of  Isaiah  (in 
which  the  future  security  of  Israel  is  compared  to  the  secu- 
rity of  the  world  from  a  second  deluge)  be  considered,  and 
let  any  impartial  person  say,  whether  the  language  does  not 
necessarily  lead  those  who  believe  the  Old  Testament,  to 
the  expectation  of  a  much  more  durable  state  of  Glory  and 
Happiness,  than  has  yet  fallen  to  the  lot  of  the  posterity  of 
Abraham. 

Is.  54,  7.  "  For  a  small  moment  have  I  forsaken  thee, 
but  with  great  mercies  will  I  gather  thee.  In  a  little 
wrath  I  hid  my  face  from  thee  for  a  moment,  but  with  ever- 
lasting kindness  will  I  have  mercy  on  thee,  saith  the  Lord 
thy  Redeemer.  For  this  is  as  the  waters  of  Noah  unto 
me.  For  as  I  have  sworn  that  the  waters  of  Noah  should 
no  more  go  over  the  earth,  so  have  I  sworn,  that  I  would 
not  be  wroth  with  thee,  nor  rebuke  thee.  For  the  moun- 
tains shall  (or  "  may")  depart,  and  the  hills  be  removed, 
but  my  kindness  shall  not  depart  from  thee,  neither 
shall  the  covenant  of  my  peace  be  removed,  saith  the  Lord 
that  hath  mercy  on  thee. — All  thy  children  shall  be  taught 
of  the  Lord,  and  great  shall  be  the  peace  of  thy  children. 
In  righteousness  shalt  thou  be  established.  Thou  shalt  be 
far  from  oppression,  for  thou  shalt  not  fear,  and  from  terror, 
for  it  shall  not  come  nigh  thee.  No  weapon  formed  against 
thee  shall  prosper,  and  every  tongue  that  shall  rise  against 
thee  in  judgment,  thou  shalt  condemn.  This  is  the  heri- 
tage of  the  servants  of  the  Lord,  and  their  righteousness  13 
of  me,  saith  the  Lord." 

Here,  as  also  in  Moses,  and  other  Prophets,  an  esta- 
blishment in  righteousness  is  promised  to  the  Israelites, 
such  as  shall  secure  their  future  prosperity  ;  and  this  pro- 
mise has  not  yet  been  fulfilled.  The  promise  of  future  vir* 


86 

tue,  as  connected  with  their  future  happiness,  is  also  clearly 
expressed  in  Jer.  ch.  iii.  18. 

Had  the  Jewish  nation  become  extinct,  or  likely  to  be- 
come so,  it  might  with  some  plausibility  have  been  said  by 
Christians,  that  the  purposes  of  God  concerning  them  were 
actually  fulfilled,  and  therefore,  that  the  words  of  the  pro- 
mise must  have  had  some  other  signification  than  that 
which  was  most  obvious.  But  the  Jews  are  as  much  a  dis- 
tinct people  as  they  ever  were,  and  therefore,  seem  reserved 
for  some  future  strange  destination. 

On  the  whole,  it  must  be  allowed,  that  the  settlement  of 
Israel  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  foretold  with  such  emphasis 
by  the  Prophets,  is  a  settlement  which  has  not  yet  taken 
place,  but  may  take  place  in  that  period  so  frequently,  and 
so  emphatically  distinguished  by  the  title  of  **  the  latter 
days  ;"  and  therefore,  that  whatever  is  said  of  Jewish  cus- 
toms, or  modes  of  worship  in  "  the  latter  days,"  is  a  proof 
of  the  meant  restoration  of  their  ancient  religious  rites. 

That  the  institutions  of  the  Mosaic  Law  are  to  be  con- 
tinued on  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  their  own  land  af- 
ter their  utter  dispersion,  is  asserted  by  Moses  himself  in  one 
of  the  passages  already  quoted  ;  but  is  more  clearly  ex- 
pressed by  the  subsequent  Prophets.  In  some  of  their 
prophecies  particular  mention  is  made  of  the  observance  of 
Jewish  festivals,  and  of  sacrifices ;  and  in  Ezechiel  we  find 
a  description  of  a  magnificent  Temple  which,  being  closely 
connected  with  his  prophecy  of  the  future  happy  state  of 
the  Israelites  in  their  own  land,  cannot  be  understood  of 
any  other  than  a  Temple,  which  is  then,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  Prophets,  to  be  reared  with  greater  magnificence 
than  ever.  Mention  is  also  made  of  "  the  Glory  of  the 
Lord"  or  that  effulgent  Shechinah  which  was  the  symbol 
of  the  divine  presence,  filling  this  Temple,  as  it  did  that  of 
Solomon. 

Ezech.  xliii.  1,  &c.  "  Afterward  he  brought  me  to  the 
gate,  even  the  gate  that  looketh  toward  the  East ;  and  be- 
hold the  glory  of  the  Lord  came  from  the  way  of  the  East, 
and  his  voiee  was  like  the  noise  of  many  waters,  and  the 
Earth  shined  with  his  Glory. — And  the  Glory  of  the  Lord 
came  into  the  house  by  the  way  of  the  gate,  whose  prospect 
is  toward  the  East,  So  the  Spirit  took  me  up,  and  brought 


87 

me  into  into  the  inner  court,  and  behold  the  Glory  of  the 
Lord  filled  the  house. — And  he  said  unto  me,  Son  of  man, 
the  place  of  my  Throne,  and  the  place  of  the  soles  of  my 
feet,  where  I  will  dwell  in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel 
forever,  and  my  holy  name  shall  the  house  of  Israel  no  more 
defile,"  &c. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  same  chapter  we  read  an  account 
of  the  dedication  of  this  new  Temple  by  sacrifices;  and  par- 
ticular directions  are  given  in  the  succeeding  chapters  for 
the  Priests,  and  for  the  Prince.  If,  therefore,  there  be  any 
truth  in  these  prophecies,  the  Jews  are  not  only  to  return 
to  their  own  country,  and  to  be  distinguished  among  the 
nations,  but  are  to  rebuild  the  Temple,  and  to  restore  the 
ancient  Worship. 

Having  proved  that  the  Old  Testament  declares  the  per- 
petuity of  the  Mosaic  Law,  I  proceed  2ndly  to  prove,  that 
it  is  declared  to  be  perpetual  by  Jesus  himself. 

But  before  I  adduce  my  proofs,  1  beg  leave  to  premise, 
that  when  any  Law  is  solemnly  enacted,  we  expect  that  the 
abrogation  of  it  should  be  equally  solemn  and  express,  in  or- 
der that  no  room  for  dispute  may  remain  upon  the  subject. 
Accordingly,  it  is  the  custom,  I  believe,  in  all  countries,  not 
to  make  any  new  Law  contradictory  to  another  before  sub- 
sisting, without  a  previous  express  abrogation  of  the  old  one. 
And  certainly  it  appears  to  me  a  strange  notion  to  suppose, 
that  the  elaborate  and  noble  Law  given  from  Mount  Sinai 
amidst  circumstances  unexampled,  awful,  and  tremen- 
dously magnificent,  and  believed  to  have  been  declared  by  the 
voice  of  God  to  be  a  perpetual  and  everlasting  Code,  should 
vanish,  perish,  and  be  annihilated  by  the  mere  dictum  of 
twelve  fishermen ! ! 

But  the  fact  is  otherwise,  for  Jesus  was  so  far  from 
teaching  the  abrogation  of  that  law,  that  he  expressly  says 
— "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law,  or  the 
Prophets,  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For 
verily  I  say  unto  you,  till  Heaven  and  Earth  pass,  one  jot, 
or  one  tittle,  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  till  all  be 
fulfilled."  This  is  a  most  explicit  declaration  that  not  the 
smallest  punctilio  in  the  law  of  Moses  was  intended  to  be 
set  aside  by  the  Gospel.  Nay  more,  he  expressly  com- 
manded his  Disciples  to  the  same  purpose — "  The  Scribes 


88 

and  Pharisees  (says  he)  sit  in  Moses'  seat;  all,  therefor*, 
whatsoever  they  command  you,  that  observe,  and  do." 

^  It  is  said  in  answer  to  this  by  Christian  Divines,  that  his 
discourse  relates  to  things  of  a  moral  nature,  and  that  he 
only  meant  that  no  part  of  the  Moral  Law  was  to  be  abo- 
lished. But  besides  that  the  expression  is  general,  there 
could  be  no  occasion  to  make  so  solemn  a  declaration 
against  what  he  could  not  have  been  suspected  of  intend- 
ing, viz.  of  abolishing  the  moral  law.  He  seems  in  his  dis- 
course to  have  had  in  view  the  additions  that  had  been 
made  to  the  law.  These  he  sets  aside,  but  no  part  of  the 
original  law  itself. 

"  It  has  also  been  urged  that  by  fulfilling,  may  be  meant 
such  an  accomplishment  of  it  as  would  imply  the  superceding 
of  it  when  the  purposes  for  which  it  was  instituted  should 
be  answered.  To  silence  this  explication  it  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  produce  a  few  out  of  many  passages  of  the  New 
Testament  where  the  term  fulfil  occurs  in  connexion  with 
the  term  law.  Thus  Paul  says,  Gal.  v.  14—"  And  all  the 
law  is  fulfilled  in  one  word,  even  in  this,  thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbour  as  thyself,"  and  again,  Rom.  xiii.  8 — "  He 
that  loveth  another  hath  fulfilled  the  law"  But  cer- 
tainly notwithstanding  this  fulfillment  of  the  moral  law,  it 
remains  in  as  full  force  as  ever. 

The  Apostles  understood  Jesus  to  mean  as  we  have  as- 
serted. For  it  is  evident  from  the  Acts,  that  the  Christians 
at  Jerusalem  were  zealous  in  attachment  to  the  law  of 
Moses ;  this  is  evident  from  their  surprise  at  Peter's  con- 
duct with  regard  to  Cornelius ;  and  in  the  dispute  about 
imposing  circumcision  upon  the  Gentiles  :  observe,  there  was 
no  dispute  about  its  being  obligatory  upon  Jews. 

Paul  was  indeed  vehemently  accused  of  teaching  a  con- 
trary doctrine,  as  we  find  in  the  history  of  the  transactions 
respecting  him  in  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem.  Acts  xxi. 
21 — «  They  (i.  e.  the  Christians)  are  informed  of  thee 
(says  James  to  Paul))  ihat  thou  teachest  all  the  Jews  which 
are  among  the  Gentiles,  to  prsake  Moses,  saying  that  they 
ought  not  to  circumcise  their  children,  neither  to  walk  after 
the  customs."  Here  James  gives  Paul  to  understand  that 
he  considered  the  report  as  a  calumny,  and  accordingly,  to 
convince  the  Jewish  Christians  that  it  was  a  false  revort, 


89 

he  advises  Paul  to  be  at  charges  with  some  Jewish  Chris- 
tians, who  were  under  a  vow  of  Nazaritism,  (which  is  an 
instance  in  point  to  prove  that  the  first  Christians  kept  the 
law, )  and  thus  publicly  manifest  that  he  himself  "  walked 
orderly,  and  kept  the  law."  Paul  complies  with  this  advice, 
and  purified  himself  in  the  Temple,  and  did  what  was  done 
in  like  cases  by  the  strictest  Jews.  He  also  circumcised 
Timothy,  who  was  a  convert  to  Christianity,  because  he  was 
the  son  of  a  Jewish  Mother.  And  he  solemnly  declared  in 
open  court,  Acts  xxv.  8 — "  Against  the  law  of  the  Jews, 
neither  against  the  Temple,  have  I  offended  any  thing  at  all," 
and  again  to  the  Jews  at  Rome,  Acts  xxviii.  7,  he  assures 
them  that  "  he  had  done  nothing  against  the  people,  or  the 
customs  of  the  Fathers" 

But  some  men  will  say,  "  did  not  Paul  expressly  teach 
the  abrogation  of  the  law  in  his  Epistles,  especially  in  that 
to  the  Galatians  ?"  I  answer,  he  undoubtedly  did ;  and 
in  so  doing  he  contradicted  the  Old  Testament,  his  master 
Jesus,  the  twelve  Apostles,  and  himself  too."  Bnt  how  can 
this  be ?  'I  answer,  it  is  none  of  my  concern  to  reconcile 
the  conduct  of  Paul,  or  to  defend  his  equivocations.  It  is 
pretty  clear,  that  he  did  not  dare  to  preach  this  doctrine  at 
Jerusalem.  He  confined  this  "  hidden  wisdom,"  to  the  Gen- 
tiles. To  the  Jews  he  became  as  a  Jew ;  and  to  the  un- 
circumcised  as  one  uncircumcised,  he  was  "  all  things  to  all 
menT  and  for  this  conduct  he  gives  you  his  reason,  viz.  "that 
he  was  determined  at  any  rate  to  gain  some"  If  this  be 
double  dealing,  dissimulation,  and  equivocation,  I  cannot 
help  it ;  it  is  none  of  my  concern,  I  leave  it  to  the  Com- 
mentators, and  the  Reconciliators,  the  Disciples  of  Su- 
renhusius ;  let  them  look  to  it;  perhaps  they  can  hunt 
up  some  "  traditionary  rules  of  interpretation  among  the 
Jews,"  that  will  help  them  to  explain  the  matter. 

Lastly,  it  has  been  said  that  there  was  no  occasion  for 
Jesus,  or  his  Apostles  to  be  very  explicit  with  respect  to 
the  abolition  of  the  laws  of  Moses,  since  the  Temple  was 
to  be  soon  destroyed,  when  the  Jewish  worship  would  cease 
of  course. 

This  argument,  flimsy  as  it  is,  is  nevertheless  the  irutar 
omnium  of  the  Christian  Divines  to  prove  the  abolishment 
of  this  Law :  (for  the  other  arguments  adduced  by  them  as 
prophecies  of  it  from  the  1  ch.  of  Isaiah,  and  some  of  the 


90 

Psalms,  are  nothing  to  the  purpose ;  they  being  merely  de- 
clarations of  God,  that  he  preferred  obedience  in  the 
weightier  matters  of  the  Law,  Justice,  Mercy,  and  Holiness, 
to  ceremonial  observances  ;  and  that  repentance  was  of  more 
avail  with  him,  than  offering  thousands  of  rams,  and  fed 
beasts,)  and  this  argument,  like  so  many  others,  when 
weighed  in  the  balance  will  be  "  found  wanting." 

For,  as  the  destruction  of  the  Temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar 
certainly  did  not  abolish  the  Law,  so  neither  did  the  des- 
truction by  Titus  do  it  And  as  it  would  be  notoriously  ab- 
surd to  maintain  thejirst,  so  it  is  equally  so,  to  maintain  the 
last  position.  Besides  a  very  considerable  part  of  that  l;iw  can 
be,  and  for  these  seventeen  hundred  years  has  been  kept  with- 
out the  Temple.  As  for  example,  circumcision,  distinction 
of  meats,  and  many  others.  And  when,  if  ever,  they  shall 
return  to  their  own  land,  and  rebuild  the  Temple,  they  will 
then,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  observe  the  Whole, 
and  with  greater  splendour  than  ever. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

As  Christians  lay  great  stress  upon  their  argument  for 
the  truth  of  their  Religion,  derived  from  the  supposed  mira- 
culous conversion  of  Paul ;  and  since  almost  the  whole  of 
Systematic  Christianity  is  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the 
Epistles  ascribed  to  him  ;  we  shall  pay  a  little  more  atten- 
tion to  his  character  and  writings. 

Paul  was  evidently  a  man  of  no  small  capacity,  a  fiery 
temper,  great  subtilty,  and  considerably  well  versed  in 
Jewish  Traditionary,  and  Cabbalistic  Learning,  and  not  un- 
acquainted with  the  principles  of  the  Philosophy  called 
*'  the  Oriental."  He  is  said  by  Luke  to  have  been  convert- 
ed to  Christianity  by  a  splendid  apparition  of  Jesus,  who 
struck  him  to  the  ground  by  the  glory  of  his  appearance. 
But  by  the  Jews  and  the  Nazarene  Christians,  he  is  repre- 
sented as  having  been  converted  to  Christianity  from  a 
diiferent  cause.  They  say  *  that  being  a  man  of  tried  abi- 
lities and  of  some  note,  he  demanded  the  High  Prieafs 


91 

daughter  in  marriage,  and  being  refused,  his  rash  and  rage- 
ful  temper,  and  a  desire  of  revenge,  drove  him  to  join  the 
"  sect  of  the  Nazarenes,"  at  that  time  beginning  to  become 
troublesome  to  the  Sanhedrim.  However  this  may  be, 
whether  he  became  a  Christian  from  conviction,  or  from  am- 
bition ;  it  is  certain  from  the  Acts  that  he  always  was  con- 
sidered by  the  Jewish  Christians,  as  a  suspected  character  ; 
and  it  is  evident  that  he  taught  a  different  Doctrine  from 
that  promulgated  by  the  twelve  Apostles.  And  this  was 
the  true  cause  of  the  great  difficulty  he  was  evidently  under 
of  keeping  steady  to  him  his  Gentile  converts.  I4 or  it  is 
evident  from  the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians,  and  the  Corin- 
thians, that  the  Jewish  Christians  represented  Paul  to  them 
as  not  "  sound  in  the  Faith,"  but  as  teaching  a  different 
Doctrine  from  that  of  the  Twelve,  and  so  influential  were 
these  representations,  that  Paul  had  the  greatest  difficulty 
in  keeping  them  to  his  System. 

That  there  were  two  Parties,  or  Schools  in  the  first 
Christian  church,  viz.  the  adherents  of  the  Apostles,  and  the 
Disciples  of  Paul,  is  evident  from  the  New  Testament,  and 
has  been  fully,  and  unanswerably  proved  by  the  learned 
Semler,  the  greatest  Scholar  certainly  in  Christian  Anti- 
qu;ties  that  ever  lived.  The  knowledge  of  this  secret,  ac- 
counts for  the  different  conduct  of  Paul  when  among  his 
Gentile  converts,  from  that  which  he  pursued  when  with  the 
apostles  at  Jerusalem.  He  had  a  difficult  part  to  act,  and 
he  managed  admirably.  He  was  indeed,  as  he  says  him- 
self, "  all  things  to  all  men,"  a  Jew  with  the  Jews,  and  as 
one  uncircumcised  among  the  uncircumcised.  To  the  Jews, 
he  asserted,  that  he  "  taught  nothing  contrary  to  the  Law 
and  the  Prophets,"  and  when  brought  before  the  Sanhedrim 
for  teaching  otherwise  than  he  said,  he  dexterously  got  him- 
self out  of  tribulation,  by  throwing  a  bone  of  contention 
among  the  Council,  and  setting  his  Judges  together  by  the 
ears.  "  And  when  Paul  perceived  that  the  one  pait  (of  the 
Council)  were  Sadducees,  and  the  other  Pharisees,  he  cried  out 
in  the  Council :  Brethren  lama  Pharisee,  and  the  son  of  a 
Pharisee  ;  concerning  the  hope  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
I  am  now  judged.  And  when  he  had  said  this,  a  dissention  arose 
between  the  Pharisees,  and  the  Sadducees,  and  the  multitude 
was  divided.  For  the  Sadducees  say  there  is  no  resurrection, 
neither  angel,  nor  spirit ;  but  the  Pharisees  confess  both. 
And  there  was  a  great  cry,  and  the  Scribes  that  were  on  the 
part  of  the  Pharisee*  arose  and  strove,  saying,  We  find  no 


92 

evil  in  this  man,  &c."  This  indeed  was  a  masterly  ma- 
noeuvre, and  produced  the  desired  effect ;  and  Paul  by  this 
shows  his  knowledge  of  the  human  heart,  in  trusting  to  make 
his  Judges  forget  what  he  was  accused  of,  by  making  an 
appeal  to  their  sectarian  passions.  For  in  truth,  he  was  not 
accused  concerning  his  opinion  about  "  the  hope,  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead."  But  for  the  following  cause,  as 
his  accusers  vociferated  (in  the  xxi.  ch.)  when  they  seized 
him  in  the  Temple,  "  Men  of  Israel,  Help  !  This  is  the 
man,  who  teacheth  all  men  every  where  against  the  people, 
and  the  Law,  and  this  place." 

These  strokes  of  character  enable  us  to  understand  the 
man  :  and  I  shall  now  go  into  the  consideration  of  some 
of  the  arguments  he  has  deduced  from  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament  in  support  of  his  opinions,  after  premising  that 
the  truth  of  the  story  of  the  manner  of  his  conversion  de- 
pends entirely  upon  his  own  assertion  ;  and  whether  his  cre- 
dibility be  absolutely  unimpeachable,  can  be  easily  deter- 
mined by  an  impartial  consideration  of  the  history  of  his 
conduct  already  mentioned.  I  will  only  add  upon  this  sub- 
ject, that  in  telling  the  story  of  his  conversion,  he  ought  to 
have  had  a  better  memory.  For  in  telling  it  once  in  the 
xxvi.  ch.  of  Acts,  he  says,  in  describing  his  miraculous  vi- 
sion, that  "  those  that  were  with  me,  saw  indeed  the  light, 
and  were  afraid,  but  heard  not  the  words  of  him  that  spake 
to  me,"  and  thus  he  directly  contradicts  the  story  of  it  re- 
corded in  Acts  ix.  where  it  is  said  "  that  the  men  who 
journeyed  with  him  stood  speechless,  hearing  the  voice,  but 
seeing  no  one." 

In  the  9  ch.  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  v.  24,  he 
thus  proves  that  the  Old  Testament  prophesied  of  the  con- 
version of  the  Gentiles  to  the  Gospel — "  Even  us  whom  he 
hath  called,  not  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles, 
as  he  saith  also  in  Hosea  "  I  will  call  them  my  people, 
which  were  not  my  people ;  and  her  beloved,  which  was 
not  beloved.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  in  the  place 
where  it  was  said  unto  them,  ye  are  not  my  people,  there 
shall  they  be  called  the  sons  of  the  living  God." — Is  not 
this  to  the  purpose  ?  yet  in  applying  this  passage  to  the 
Gentiles,  Paul  has  wilfully -,  (yes  wilfully,  for  Paul  was  a 
learned  man,  and  knew  better)  perverted  the  original  from 
its  proper  reference,  and  has  passed  upon  his  simple  con- 
verts, who  did  not  know  so  much  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 


as  he  did,  a  prophecy  relating  entirely  to  the  Jews,  as  re- 
ferring to  the  Gentiles  !  !  By  turning  to  Hosea,  Reader, 
you  will  find  this  to  be  verily  the  case  ;  here  is  the  passage. 
"  Then  said  God,  call  his  name  (Hosea's  son)  Loammi, 
for  ye  (the  Israelites)  are  not  my  people,  and  1  will  not  be 
your  God,  yet  the  number  of  the  children  of  Israel  shall  be 
as  the  sand  of  the  sea,  which  cannot  be  measured,  nor  num- 
bered. And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  in  the  place  where 
it  was  said  unto  them,  ye  are  not  my  people,  there  shall  it  be 
said  unto  them,  ye  are  the  sons  of  the  living  God."  Hos. 
eh.  1. 

Again,  v.  33.  "  As  it  is  written,  Behold  I  lay  in  Zion  a 
stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  rock  of  offence,  and  every  one 
who  believeth  in  him  shall  not  be  ashamed."  Here  Paul  has 
pieced  two  passages  together,  which  in  the  original  are  discon- 
nected. For  in  the  8th  chapter  of  Is.  it  is  written,  "  Sanc- 
tify the  Lord  of  Hosts  himself  and  let  him  be  your  fear,  and 
let  him  be  your  dread.  And  he  shall  be  for  a  sanctuary  ; 
but  for  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  for  a  rock  of  offence,  to 
both  the  houses  of  Israel,  for  a  gin,  and  for  a  snare  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem."  And  in  the  28th  chapter  it  is 
written,  "  therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  God.  Behold  I  lay 
in  Zion  for  a  foundation,  a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  cor- 
ner stone,  a  sure  foundation,  he  that  believeth  shall  not  be 
ashamed,"  (or  disappointed.)  Here  you  see  Reader,  that 
he  jams  two  distant  passages  together  no  ways  related ;  and 
alters  some  words,  and  applies  them  to  Jesus,  with  whom, 
it  appears  from  the  context  of  Isaiah,  they  have  no  con- 
cern. 

Ch.  x.  v.  6.  "  The  scripture  saith,  *  say  not  in  thine 
heart,  "  who  shall  ascend  into  Heaven  ?'  (that  is  that  he 
may  bring  down  Jesus  from  above, )  again,  '  who  shall 
descend  L-to  the  abyss  ?  (that  is,  that  he  may  bring  up  Je- 
sus from  the  dead.)  But  what  saith  it  ?  «  The  word  is  very 
nigh  unto'thee,  in  thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart,'  (that  is  the 
word  of  Faith  which  we  speak.)  For  if  thou  confess  Jesus 
with  thy  mouth,  and  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  raised 
him  from  the  dead,  thou  shalt  be  saved.'  Here  you  will 
see  another  instance  of  misapplication  of  Scripture  by  Paul, 
in  order  to  dazzle  the  eyes  of  his  simple,  and  credulous 
converts,  for  let  any  one  look  at  the  place  in  the  Scripture 
whence  the  quotation  is  taken,  and  he  will  immediately  see 


94 

the  inapplicability  of  the  words,  and  the  adulteration  of 
those  of  the  original,  in  order  to  make  them  apply.  For 
the  Scripture  quoted  speaks  of,  and  refers  to  penitence,  and 
not  at  all  about  believing  on,  or  bringing  down  Jesus  from 
Heaven,  or  up  from  the  dead ;  for  here  are  the  words, 
Deut.  30.—"  If  thou  be  converted  to  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  mind." — Immediately  is 
subjoined — "  For  this  Law  which  I  command  you  this  day 
is  not  far  from  thee  ;•  neither  is  it  afar  off.  It  is  not  in 
Heaven,  that  thou  shouldst  say,  who  shall  ascend  for  us  into 
Heaven,  that  he  may  bring  it  unto  us,  and  declare  it  to  us 
that  we  might  do  it,  &c."  The  sense  of  the  whole  is,  that  God 
wills  us  to  repent  of  sin  ;  and  that  you  may  know  when 
you  have  sinned,  you  have  only  to  look  at  his  Law,  which 
is  not  in  Heaven,  nor  afar  off,  but  is  put  in  your  own  hands, 
and  is  perfectly  familiar  with  your  heart,  and  lips. 

1  Cor.  ch.  v.  1.  Paul  accuses  one  of  the  Christians  of 
the  church  of  Corinth  of  the  crime  of  incest,  because  he 
had  married  his  step-mother,  and  orders  them  to  excom- 
municate him.  But  Paul,  in  all  his  Epistles  and  teachings 
to  the  Gentiles,  pronounced  them  free  from  the  Law  of 
Moses.  Wherefore  then,  for  the  violation  of  one  of  those 
Laws  interdicting  such  a  marriage,  does  he  so  vehemently 
blame  them  ?  Such  a  marriage  is  not  forbidden  in  the  Gos- 
pel, it  was  forbidden  to  them  no  where  in  the  Scriptures 
but  in  the  Mosaic  Code.  Therefore  Paul  must  have  found- 
ed his  judgment  against  the  criminal,  upon  the  dictum  of 
that  Law  in  such  cases.  Paul  puts  the  man  under  a  curse  ; 
and  it  is  the  Mosaic  Law  which  say  Deut.  27.  "  Cursed 
is  he  who  lieth  with  his  Father's  wife."  It  seems  therefore 
that  Jesus  did  not  deliver  his  followers  from  "  the  curse  of 
the  Law"  as  Paul  taught  them  it  did  in  Gal.  iii.  13. 

Ch.  10.  1  Cor.  "and  let  us  not  pollute  ourselves  with 
fornication  as  some  of  them  were  polluted,  and  fell  in  one 
day  to  the  number  of  twenty  three  thousand.'  Here  is  a 
blunder,  for  it  is  written  "  twenty  four  thousand"  Num.  25. 

Gal.  iii.  13.  Paul  says,  "Christ hath  redeemed  us  from 
the  curse  of  the  Law  being  made  a  curse  for  us,  for  it  is 
written,  cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree."  What 
he  says  of  the  Christ,  or  the  Messiah  redeeming  from  the 
curses  written  in  the  Law,  that  by  no  means  agrees  with 
truth.  For  no  Jew  can  be  freed  from  the  curses  of  the 


95 

Law,  but  by  repenting  of  his  sins,  and  becoming  obedient 
to  it  And  in  alleging  the  words  "  cursed  is  every  one 
that  hangeth  on  a  tree,"  from  Deut  21,  he,  as  usual,  applies 
them  irrelevantly. 

Paul  says,  Gal.  iii.  10.  "  For  as  many  as  are  of  the 
works  of  the  Law  are  under  the  curse,  for  it  is  written, 
(Deut  xxvii.  26.)  "Cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth 
not  in  ALL  things  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Law  to  do  them." 
And  he  interprets  this  to  mean  that  all  mankind,  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  are  liable  to  Damnation,  (except  those  who  are 
saved  by  Faith)  because  no  man  ever  did  continue  in  all 
things  written  in  the  Law. — Now  in  the  first  place  I  would 
observe,  that  Paul  has  dared  to  forge,  and  insert  the  word 
"  all"  in  the  passage  he  quotes  from  Deut.  (in  the  original 
of  which  it  is  not)  in  order  to  make  it  support  his  system  ;  for 
'the  whole  of  his  argument  is  built  upon  this  one  surrepti- 
tiously inserted  word.  2.  The  words  according  to  the  ori- 
ginal are  simply  these  "  Cursed  is  he  that  confirmeth  not 
the  words  of  this  Law  to  do  them,"  i,  e.  He  who  disobeys, 
or  neglects  to  fulfil  the  commands  of  the  Law,  shall  be  un- 
der the  curse  denounced  upon  the  disobedient.  But  who 
would  conclude  from  this,  that  repentance  would  not  remove 
the  curse?  Does  not  God  expressly  declare  in  the  30  chap- 
ter of  Deut.  that  if  they  repent,  the  curses  written  shallbe  re- 
moved from  them  ?  and  have  we  not  innumerable  instances 
recorded  in  the  Old  Testament  of  sinners,  and  transgressors 
of  this  very  Law,  received  to  pardon,  and  favour,  upon  re- 
pentance, and  amendment  ?  So  that  this  argument  founded 
upon  forgery,  and  supported  by  bad  Logic,  is  every  way 
bad  and  insulting  to  God,  and  his  (by  Paul  acknowledged) 
word. 

Gal.  ch.  iii.  16.  To  Abraham,  and  his  seed  were  the  pro- 
mises made,  He  saith  not  "  and  to  seeds,"  (as  of  many)  but 
as  of  one,  "  and  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ"  Here  is  an 
argument  which  one  would  think  too  far  fetched,  even  for 
Paul ;  and  it  is  built  on  a  perversion  of  a  passage  from 
Genesis,  which  Paul,  bold  as  he  was  in  these  matters, 
certainly  would  not  have  ventured,  if  he  had  not  the  most 
assured  confidence  in  the  blinking  credulity  of  his  Galatian 
converts.  His  argument  in  this  place  is  drawn  from  the 
use  of  the  word  "  seed"  in  the  singular  number,  in  the  pas- 
sage of  Genesis  from  whence  he  quotes.  And  because  the 
word  seed  is  in  the  singular  number,  he  tells  the  "foolish 


90 

Galatians"  as  he  justly  calls  them,  that  this  "  seed"  must 
mean  one  individual  (and  not  many,)  "  which,  says  he,  is 
Christ."  Now  let  us  look  at  the  15  chapter  of  Gen.  from 
whencehe  quotes,  and  we  shall  see  the  force  of  this  singular 
argument  derived  from  the  use  of  the  singular  number. — 
"  And  he  (God)  brought  him  (Abraham)  forth  abroad,  and 
said,  Look  now  towards  Heaven,  and  tell  the  stars  if  thou  be 
able  to  number  them,  and  he  said  unto  him,  so  shall  thy 
seed  be. — And  he  said,  know  of  a  surety  that  thy  seed  shall 
be  a  stranger  in  a  land  that  is  not  theirs,  and  they  shall 
afflict  them,  &c.  afterwards  they  shall  come  out  with  great 
substance. — In  that  same  day  the  Lord  made  a  covenant 
with  Abraham  saying,  unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land, 
&C.  Again,  ch.  22.  God  said  to  Abraham  by  his  Angel, 
'*  I  will  multiply  thy  seed  as  the  stars  of  Heaven,  and  as 
the  sand  which  is  upon  the  sea  shore,  and  thy  seed  shall 
possess  the  gate  of  his,  (or  its)  enemies,  and  in  thy  seed  shall 
all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed,  because  thou  hast 
obeyed  my  voice  !  Reader,  what  do  you  think  now  of  Paul's 
argument  from  the  use  of  the  singular  number  ?  which  is 
most  to  be  admired,  his  impudence  in  palming  such  an  ar- 
gument upon  the  Galatians ;  (for  being  a  learned  man,  he 
certainly  knew,  that  the  argument  was  nought,)  or  their 
credulity  in  receiving  such  reasoning  as  Divine  ?  Really,  I 
fear  there  is  some  reason  for  admitting  as  true,  what  Celsus 
maliciously  says  of  the  simplicity  of  the  Primitive  Chris- 
tians, if  Paul  could  with  impunity  feed  his  "  spiritual 
babes"  with  such  pap  as  this  ! 

I  intended  to  have  concluded  this  subject,  by  bringing 
under  examination  some  of  the  arguments,  and  quotations 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  But  upon  looking  over 
that  Epistle,  and  contemplating  my  task,  I  confess  I  shrink 
from  it  That  Epistle  is  so  replete  with  daring,  ridiculous, 
and  impious  applications  of  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament, 
that  I  am  glad  to  omit  it :  and  I  think  after  the  specimens 
which  have  been  already  brought  forward,  that  my  reader 
is  quite  as  much  satiated  as  myself.  I  will  therefore  bring 
forward  only  one  quotation,  which  is  alleged  in  that  Epis- 
tle to  prove  the  abolition  of  the  law  of  Moses.  And  as 
for  the  rest,  I  content  myself  with  referring  those  who  want 
to  know  more  of  it,  to  the  Pieces  written  by  the  celebrated 
Dr.  Priestley  upon  Paul's  arguments  in  general,  and  those 
in  that  Epistle  in  particular,  preserved  in  his  Theological 
Repository,  where  he  will  see  absurdity  in  reasoning,  and 


97 

something  worse,  in  quotation,  exposed  in  a  masterly  man- 
ner. Indeed  some  learne'i  Christians  are  so  sensible  of  the 
insuperable  difficulties  attending  every  attempt  to  reconcile 
that  Epistle  to  the  Doctrine  of  Inspiration,  or  even  to  com- 
mon sense,  that  they  avoid  the  trouble,  by  denying  that 
Paul  could  have  been  the  author  of  such  a  work,  and  attri- 
bute it  to  the  same,  or  a  similar  hand  with  that,  which  forged 
the  marvellous  Epistle  ascribed  to  Barnabas. 

The  quotation  brought  forward  in  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews to  prove  the  abrogation  of  the  Mosaic  Law,  and  the 
substitution  of  a  new  one  is  taken  from  Jer.  xxxi.  31,  &c. 
"  Behold  the  days  come  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a 
new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Judah.  Not  according  to 
the  covenant  which  I  made  with  their  Fathers,  in  the  day 
that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of  the  land 
of  Egypt,  (which  my  covenant  they  brake,  although  I  was 
an  husband  unto  them,  saith  the  Lord.)  But  this  shall  be 
the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel.  Af- 
ter those  days  saith  the  Lord,  I  will  put  My  Law  in  their 
inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hea/ts  ;  and  will  be  their 
God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people,  and  they  shall  teach  no 
more  every  man  his  neighbour  saying,  know  the  Lord, 
for  they  shall  all  know  me  from  the  least  of  them  unto 
the  greatest  of  them,  saith  the  Lord,  for  I  will  forgive 
their  iniquity,  and  will  remember  their  sins  no  more."  Upon 
this  passage  the  Author  of  the  Epistle  observes  "  in  that 
he  saith  '  a  new  covenant,'  he  hath  made  the  first  old,"  and 
he  sagely  concludes  '  now  that  which  decayeth,  and  waxeth 
old,  is  ready  to  vanish  away  !  !  and  takes  the  quotation  to 
be  a  prophecy  of  the  abolition  of  the  old  Law,  and  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Gospel  Dispensation. 

Now  I  would  observe  on  his  reasoning,  in  the  first  place, 
that  allowing  for  a  moment  his  interpretation  of  the  pro- 
phecy to  be  correct,  (i.  e.  that  it  signifies  the  abolishment 
of  the  old,  and  an  introduction  of  a  new  Law)  the  prophecy 
at  any  rate  cannot  refer  to  Jesus,  or  the  Gospel :  for  so  far 
from  having  been  fulfilled  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  or  his  Apos- 
tles, it  has  not  been  fulfilled  to  this  day  ;  for  certainly  God 
has  not  yet  made  a  new  covenant  with  the  Jews  to  whom  the 
prophecy  refers,  nor  has  he  yet  put  his  Law  in  their  hearts  ; 
nor  caused  them  to  walk  in  it  ;  neither  has  he  yet  forgiven 
their  sins,  or  forgotten  their  iniquities,  since  they  are  even 
now  suffering  the  consequences  of  them. 


98 

I  will  now  retract  what  I  granted,  and  assert  that  the 
Prophet  did  not  mean  an  abolition  of  the  Mosaic,  and  the 
introduction  of  a  new  Law.  For  though  the  Prophet  speaks 
of  a  new  covenant,  he  says  nothing  of  a  new  Law  ;  but  on 
the  contrary  asserts  that  this  new  Covenant  would  be  effec- 
tual to  make  them  obey  the  Law.  God  promised  to  put  his 
Law  within  .their  hearts  ;  (not  out  of  remembrance,  as  the 
Catechisms  say,)  and  in  this  alone,  this  covenant  differs  from 
the  one  entered  into  at  Mount  Sinai.  For  then,  though  the 
Law  was  given  them,  it  was  not  "  put  within  their  hearts," 
but  they  were  apt  to  their  own  controul,  to  obey  it,  or  not ; 
being  assured  however,  that  happiness  should  be  the  re- 
ward of  obedience,  and  death,  and  excision  the  punishment 
lor  revolt,  and  disobedience.  And  you  will  moreover  ob- 
serve, that  notwithstanding  what  is  here  called  a  new  cove- 
nant, nothing  is  here  said  of  the  abrogation  of  any  former 
covenant,  or  constitution,  or  of  any  new  terms,  that  would 
be  required  by  God  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites.  The  Pro- 
phet, by  expanding  his  idea,  sufficiently  explains  his  whole 
meaning,  which  is  evidently  this,  viz.  That  God  would 
make  a  new,  and  solemn  promise  to  the  Israelites,  that 
they  should  be  no  more  out  of  favour  with  him,  that  their 
hearts  would  be  hereafter  so  right  with  God,  that  in  conse- 
quence of  it  they  would  continue  in  the  quiet  possession  of 
their  country  to  the  end  of  time.  And  all  this,  is  inti- 
mated by  Moses,  in  the  quotation  from  Deuteronomy  quoted 
in  the  last  chapter. 

Thus  is  this  passage  perfectly  consistent  with  those  in 
the  Old  Testament,  which  affirm,  whether  right  or  wrong,  is 
not  my  concern,  the  perfection,  and  perpetuity  of  the  Mo- 
saic Law.  "  Remember,"  are  the  last  words  of  the  last  of 
the  Prophets,  Malachi,  "  Remember  the  Law  of  Moses,  my 
servant  which  I  commanded  unto  him  in  Horeb,  with  the 
Statutes,  and  Judgments."  Also  in  the  Psalms,  "  The  Law 
of  the  Lord  is  Perfect,  converting  the  soul.  The  Testimony 
of  the  Lord  is  faithful,  bringing  wisdom  to  the  simple.  The 
Precepts  of  the  Lord  are  right,  rejoicing  the  heart,  and 
enlightening  the  eyes."  "  The  works  of  his  hands  are 
Truth,  and  Judgment.  All  his  Precepts  are  sure.  They 
stand  .fast  forever  and  ever  :  being  done  in  Truth,  and  Up- 
rightness" 


99 

CHAPTER  XIII. 


I  have  said  in  the  preceding  chapter,  that  Paul  was  well 
versed  in  Cabbalistic  Learning,  and  not  unacquainted  with 
the  principles  of  the  Philosophy  styled  "  the  Oriental :" 
and  to  prove,  and  exemplify  this  assertion  is  the  subject  and 
intention  of  this  chapter.  None  but  the  learned  know,  how 
much  of  Systematic  Christianity  is  derived  from  the  Cab" 
balism  of  the  Jews  ;  the  Religion  of  the  Magi  of  Persia  ; 
and  the  Philosophy  of  the  Bramins  oflndostan.  I  shall  at- 
tempt to  lay  open  these  Theological  Arcana,  and  make  them 
known  to  those  who  ought  to  know  what  they  have  been 
kept  in  ignorance  of. 

Many  of  my  Readers  have  no  doubt  frequently  puzzled 
themselves  over  these  words  of  Paul  Eph.  v.  30,  "  For 
we  are  members  of  his  (Christ's)  body,  of  \i\zjlesh,  and  of 
his  bones.  Because  of  this,  a  man  shall  leave  his  father,  and 
mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  his  wife,  and  they  two  shall  be 
one  flesh.  This  mystery  is  great,  but  I  speak  concerning 
Christ,  and  the  Church."  This  passage  exemplifies  the 
connexion  between  Christ  and  the  Church,  by  that  which 
subsists  between  a  man,  and  his  wife  :  and  this  Paul  calls 
"  a  great  mystery,"  and  it  no  doubt  must  be  a  very  my- 
sterious passage  to  all  those  who  are  unacquainted  with  the 
cabbalistic  notion  to  which  it  alludes,  and  refers.  To  illus- 
trate the  passage,  and  to  prove  that  Paul  mixed  his  Cab- 
balism  with  his  Religion,  I  shall  set  down  here  the  note  of 
Dr.  Whitby  the  Christian  Commentator  upon  the  text  of 
Paul. 

"  The  learned  Dr.  Allix  saith,  The  first  match  between 
Adam  and  Eve  was  a  Type  of  that  between  Christ,  and  his 
Church ;  and  in  this,  saith  he,  the  Apostle  follows  the 
Jewish  notions.  The  Jews  say,  the  mystery  of  Adam 
is  the  mystery  of  the  Messiah,  who  is  the  Bridegroom 
of  the  Church.  These  two  persons  therefore  confirm 
the  observation  of  Munster,  that  the  creation  of  the 
woman  from  the  rib  of  the  man,  was  made  by  the  Jews 
to  signify  the  marriage  of  the  Celestial  man  who  is  bless- 
ad,  or  of  the  Messiah,  with  the  Church ;  whence  the 
Apostle  applies  the  very  words  which  Adam  said  con- 
cerning Eve  his  spouse,  to  the  Church,  who  is  the  spouse 


100 

of  Christ ;  saying  "  for  we  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his 
flesh,  and  of  his  bones."  For  the  explanation  of  these 
words  take  what  follows.  "  The  profoundest  of  the  Jewish 
Divines  whom  they  now  call  Cabbalists,  having  such  a  no- 
tion as  this  among  them,  that  sensible  things  are  but  an  imi- 
tation of  things  above,  conceived  from  thence,  that  there  was 
an  ,orig inal  pattern  of  Love,  and  Union,  which  is  between  a 
man,  and  his  wife,  in  this  world.  This  being  expressed  by 
the  kindness  of  Tiphiret  and  Malcuth,  which  are  the  names 
they  give  to  the  invisible  Bridegroom  and  Bride  in  the  upper 
world.  And  this  Tiphiret  or  the  Celestial  Adam,  is  so  called 
in  opposition  to  the  terrestial  Adam  ;  as  Malcuth  also,  (i.  e. 
the  kingdom)  they  call  by  the  name  of  Chinnereth  Israel, 
the  congregation  of  Israel,  who  is,  they  say,  united  to 
the  Celestial  Adam,  as  Eve  was  to  the  terrestiaL  So 
that  in  sum,  they  seem  to  say  the  same  that  Paul 
doth,  when  he  tells  us,  that  "  marriage  is  a  great  my- 
stery, but  he  speaks  concerning  Christ  and  his  Church." 
For  the  marriage  of  Tiphiret,  and  Malcuth,  is  the  mar- 
riage of  Christ  "  the  Lord  from  Heaven,"  ( "  the  "first 
man  was  of  the  Earth,  earthly,  the  second  man  is  the 
Lord  from  /leaven"  says  Paul  1  Cor.  15,)  with  his  spouse 
the  Church,  which  is  the  conjunction  of  Adam,  and  Eve, 
and  of  all  other  men  and  women  descended  from  them. 
Origen  also  seems  to  have  had  some  notion  of  the  relation 
of  this  passage  to  Adam  and  Eve,  when  he  speaks  thus, 
"  If  any  man  deride  us  for  using  the  example  of  Adam  and 
Eve,  in  these  words,  "  and  Adam  knew  his  wife  ;"  when 
we  treat  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  let  him  consider  these 
words — "  This  is  a  great  mystery."  Tertullian  frequently 
alludes  to  the  same  thing,  saying — "  this  is  a  great  sacra- 
ment carnally  in  Adam,  spiritually  in  Christ ;  because  of 
the  spiritual  marriage  between  Christ,  and  the  Church." 

Thus  far  Dr.  Whitby ;  and  the  intelligent  reader,  who 
is  acquainted  with  the  Dogmas,  and  Philosophy  of  Indostan, 
will  not  fail  to  see  through  this  cloud  of  words,  the  origin 
of  this  anology  of  Paul's.  The  fact  is,  that  in  India,  and 
in  Egypt,  the  Divine,  creative  poicer  which  produced  all 
things,  and  energizes  in  every  thing,  was  symbolized  by  the 
Phallus  ;  and  to  this  day,  in  Ilindostan,  the  operation  of 
Deity  upon  matter  is  symbolized  by  Images  of  the  male, 
and  female  generative  organs  ;  and  in  the  darkest  recesses 
of  their  Temples,  which  none  but  the  initiated  were  per- 
mitted to  enter,  the  Phallus  of  stone  is  the  solitary  idol,  be- 


101 

fore  which  the  illuminated  bowed.  This  symbol,  though 
shameful  and  abominable,  is  yet  looked  upon  in  India  with 
the  profoundest  veneration,  and  is  not  with  them,  the  occasion 
of  shame,  or  reproach.  It  is,  however,  a  blasphemous  abomi- 
nation, and  the  marriage  between  Christ  and  the  Church 
ought  not  to  have  been  thus  illustrated  by  Paul,  who  re- 
proached the  Heathen  mysteries  as  "works  of  darkness," 
which  mysteries,  in  fact,  consisted  principally  in  exhibiting 
these  symbols,  and  similar  abominations. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  what  is  the  meaning  of  the  other 
clause  of  the  verse,  what  could  Paul  mean  by  the  strong 
language  "  We  are  members  of  his  body,  of  his  fash,  and  of 
his  bones  ?'  Why  my  reader,  he  meant  that  Christians  were 
really  part  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  if  you  desire  to  know 
how  he  imagined  this  union  to  be  effected,  I  request  you  to 
turn  to  the  10th  chapter  of  the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
where  at  the  16th  verse  he  thus  writes  to  them,  "  The  cup  of 
blessing  which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  participation  of  the  blood 
of  Christ  ?  The  loaf  (ac.  to  the  Greek  original,)  which  we 
break,  is  it  not  a  participation  of  the  body  of  Christ  ?  for, 
because  the  loaf  is  one,  we,  though  many,  are  one  body,  for 
we  all  partake  of  that  one  loaf"  Again,  ch.  XL  29,  "  For 
he  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh 
judgment  to  himself,  not  distinguishing  (or  discovering)  the 
Lord's  body"  and  in  ch.  xii.  27,  he  says  to  them,  " Ye  are 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  his  members  severally."  (See 
the  original  of  these  passages  in  Griesbach's  Greek 
Testament)  Thus  you  see,  reader,  that  Paul  considered 
Christians  "  as  members  of  his  (Christ's)  body,  of  his^es^, 
and  of  his  bones,"  because  they  partook  of  one  loaf,  which 
was  the  body  of  Christ.  The  Papists  are  in  the  right  !  and 
have  been  much  slandered  by  the  Protestants  :  for  the 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  or  at  least  the  Real  Presence, 
is  as  plainly  taught  in  the  New  Testament,  as  the  doctrine 
of  the  Atonement  You  have  seen  what  Paul  believed 
upon  this  subject,  and  I  shall  corroborate  the  sense  I  put 
upon  his  words,  by  the  words  of  Jesus  his  master,  and 
by  quotations  from  the  earliest  Fathers. 

Jesus  says,  Jo.  vL,  "  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down 
from  Heaven  ;  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread,  he  shall  live 
forever,  and  the  bread  which  I  will  give,  is  my  fash,  which  I 
will  give  for  the  life  of  the  world."  The  Jews,  therefore, 


102 

contended  among  themselves,  saying  "  How  can  thy  man 
give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ?"  Jesus  therefore  said  unto  them, 
"  Verity,  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  Unless  ye  eat  the  flesh  of 
the  son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  not  life  in  you. 
He  that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  hath  ever- 
lasting life  ;  and  I  will  raise  him  up  at  the  last  day. — 
For  my  flesh  is  verily  food,  and  my  blood  is  verily  drink.  He 
that  eateth  my  flesh,  and  drinketh  my  blood,  abideth  in  me, 
and  /  in  him.  As  the  living  Father  hath  sent  me,  and  I 
live  by  the  Father  !  (here  is  an  oath  !)  so  he  likewise  that 
eateth  me,  shall  live  by  me." 

This  strange  Doctrine  was  the  faith  of  the  Primitive 
Christians  as  is  well  known  to  the  learned  Protestants, 
though  they  do  not  like  to  say  so  to  their  "  weaker  brethren." 

Ignatius  says,  "  There  is  one  flesh  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  one  cup  in  the  unity  of  his  blood,"  and  of  cer- 
tain Heretics  he  says,  "  they  confess  not  the  Eucharist  to  be 
the  flesh  of  our  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ." 

Justin  Martyr,  in  his  apology,  asserts,  that  the  conse- 
crated bread  "  is  some  how  or  other,  the  flesh  of  Christ." 

In  the  dispute  with  Latimer  about  Transubstantiation,  it 
is  acknowledged  by  the  most  candid  writers,  that  the  Ro- 
man Catholics  had  much  the  advantage.  It  must  have 
been  so,  where  quotations  from  the  Fathers  were  allowed 
as  arguments.  For  what  answer  can  be  made  to  the  fol- 
lowing extracts  ?  "What  a  miracle  is  this  !  He  who  sits 
above  with  the  Father,  at  the  same  instant,  is  handled  by 
the  hands  of  men."  (Chrysostom.)  Again,  from  the  same, 
"  That  which  is  in  the  cup  is  the  same  which  flowed  from  the 
side  of  Christ."  Again,  "  Because  we  abhor  the  eating  of 
raw  flesh,  therefore  it  appear eth  bread  though  it  be  flesh." 
(Theophylact)  Or  to  this  ?  "  Christ  was  carried  in  his  own 
hands,  when  he  said  "  this  is  my  body."  [Austin.]  Or  to 
this  ?  "  We  are  taught  that  when  this  nourishing  food  is 
consecrated,  it  becomes  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Saviour," 
[Justin  Martyr.]  Or  lastly,  to  this  ?  [from  Ambrose.] — 
"  It  is  bread  before  consecration,  but  after  that  ceremony,  it 
becomes  the  flesh  of  Christ." 

Another  Doctrine  which  Paul  derived  from  the  Oriental 
Philosophy,  and  which  makes  a  great  figure  in  his  writings, 


103 

is  the  notion,  that  moral  corruption  originates  in  the  influ~ 
ence  of  the  body  upon  the  mind. 

It  was  one  of  the  principal  tenets  of  the  Oriental  Philo- 
sophy, that  all  evil  resulted  from  matter,  and  its  first  found- 
er appears  to  have  argued  in  the  following  manner.  "  There 
are  many  evils  in  the  world,  and  men  seem  impelled  by  a 
natural  instinct  to  the  practice  of  those  things  which  reason 
condemns.  But  that  Eternal  mind,  from  which  all  spirits 
derive  their  existence,  must  be  inaccessible  to  all  kinds  of 
evil,  and  also  of  a  most  perfect,  and  beneficent  nature; 
therefore,  the  origin  of  these  evils,  with  which  the 
world  abounds,  must  be  sought  somewhere  eke,  than  in  the 
Diety.  It  cannot  reside  in  him  who  is  all  perfection,  and 
therefore  it  must  be  without  him.  Now  there  is  nothing 
without,  or  beyond  the  Deity  but  matter,  therefore  matter  is, 
the  centre,  and  source  of  all  evil,  of  all  vice. 

One  of  the  consequences  they  drew  from  this  Hypothesis 
was,  that  since  all  evil  resulted  from  matter,  the  depravity 
of  mankind  arose  from  the  pollution  derived  to  the  human 
soul,  from  its  connexion  with  the  material  body  which  it  in- 
habits ;  and  therefore  the  only  means  by  which  the  mind 
could  purify  itself  from  the  defilement,  and  liberate  itself 
from  the  bondage  imposed  upon  it  by  the  body,  was  to  ema- 
ciate and  humble  the  body  by  frequent  fasting,  and  to  invi- 
gorate the  mind  to  overcome  and  subdue  it,  by  retirement 
and  contemplation. 

The  New  Testament  though  it  does  not  recognise  this 
principle  of  the  Oriental  Philosophy,  "  that  Evil  originates 
from  matter"  yet  coincides  with  it,  in  strenuously  asserting 
that  the  corruption  of  the  human  mind,  is  derived  from  its 
connexion  with  the  human  body. 

To  prove  this  proposition,  I  shall  show  that  Paul  calls  all 
crimes — "  the  works  of  the  flesh."  "  Now  the  works  of  the 
flesh  are  manifest,  (says  he  Gal.  v.  19,)  which  are  these  : 
adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idolatry, 
sorcery,  hatred,  contentions,  rivalries,  wrath,  disputes,  di- 
visions, heresies,  envyings,  murthers,  drunkenness,  revellings, 
and  such  like."  He  also  describes  the  conflict  between  the 
flesh,  and  the  spirit  or  mind,  in  these  terms.  "  For  I  know 
that  in  me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh  dwelleth  no  good,  for  to  will 
is  present  with  me,  but  to  perform  that  which  is  good,  I 


104 

find  not,  but  the  evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do.  For  I 
delight  in  the  Law  of  God  according  to  the  inner  man,  but 
I  see  another  Law  in  my  members  warring  against  the  Law 
of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to  the  Law  of 
my  sin  in  my  members.  O  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  who 
will  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this  death  ?"  (or  this  body 
of  Death  ?)  And  he  goes  on  to  observe,  "  that  I,  the 
same  man,  with  my  mind  serve  the  Law  of  God,  but  with 
my  flesh  the  Law  of  sin,  (Rom.  vii.)  "For  the  flesh 
desireth,  against  (or  in  opposition  to)  the  spirit,  and  the 
spirit  against  the  flesh,  and  these  are  contrary  the  one  to  the 
other,  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the  things  that  ye  would." — 
"  Those  that  are  Christ's,  says  Paul,  Gal.  v.  24,  have  cruci- 
fled  the  flesh,  with  its  passions,  and  desires."  And  they 
are  commanded  (Rom.  vi.  12.  and  viii.  13. )  "  to  mortify' 
or  according  to  the  original,  "  put  to  death"  or  kill  their 
members,  and  Paul  himself  uses  language  upon  this  sub- 
ject exceedingly  strong.  He  represents  (1  Cor.  ix.  27,)  his 
mind  and  body  as  engaged  in  combat,  and  says,  "  I  buffet 
my  body,  and  subject  it."  The  word  here  translated, 
"  subject,"  in  the  original,  means  "  to  carry  into  servitude," 
and  is  a  term  taken  from  the  language  of  the  Olympic, 
James,  where  the  Boxers  dragged  off  the  Arena,  their  con- 
quered, disabled,  and  helpless  antagonists  like  slaves,  in 
which  humbled  condition  the  Apostle  represents  his  body 
to  be  with  respect  to  his  mind. 

From  this  notion  of  the  sinfulness  of  "  the  Flesh"  we  are 
enabled  to  apprehend  Paul's  reasonings  about  the  suffer- 
ings of  Jesus  "  in  the  fash"  "  Since  the  children  are 
partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  Christ  himself  also  in  like  man- 
ner partook  of  them."  Heb.  ii.  14.  "For  (says  Paul) 
what  the  Law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the 
flesh,  God  hath  done,  who  by  having  sent  his  own  son  in 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  and  on  account  of  sin,  hath  con- 
demned sin  in  the  flesh"  (Rom.  viii.  3.)  "  But  now,  through 
Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  formerly  were  far  off,  are  brought 
near  by  the  blood  of  Christ — For  he  is  our  Peace  who  hath 
made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of 
partition  between  us,  having  abolished  by  his  flesh  the  cause 
of  enmity."  (Ephes.  ii.  16.)  "You  that  were  formerly 
aliens  and  enemies  in  your  mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  he 
hath  now  reconciled  by  hit  fleshly  body,  through  his  death," 
(Col  i.  20.) 


105 

Though  'these  notions  are  sufficiently  strange,  yet  they 
are  not  so  very  remarkable  as  the  one  I  am  about  to  consi- 
der. It  is  a  singular,  and  a  demonstrable  fact,  that  the 
fundamental  scheme  of  Christianity  was  derived  from  the  Re- 
ligion of  the  ancierd  Persians.  The  whole  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment scheme  is  built  upon  the  Hypothesis,  that  there  is  a 
powerful  and  malignant  Being,  called  the  Devil)  and  Satan, 
the  Chief  of  unknown  myriads  of  other  evil  spirits  ;  that  he  is, 
by  the  sufferance  of  God,  the  Prince  of  this  world,  and  is 
the  Author  of  Sin,  Woe,  and  Death  ;  the  Tempter ;  the 
Tormentor  of  men ;  and  the  Tyrant  of  the  Earth ;  that  the 
Son  of  God,  to  deliver  mankind  from  the  vassalage  of  this 
monster,  descended  from  Heaven,  and  purchased  their  ran- 
som of  the  Tyrant,  at  the  price  of  his  Blood  ;  for  observe, 
my  reader !  that  the  idea  of  the  death  of  Christ  being  an 
atonement  to  God  for  the  sins  of  men,  is  a  modern  notion,  for 
tiie  primitive  Christians,  all  of  them,  considered  the  death 
of  Christ  as  a  ransom  paid  to  the  Devil  ;  as  may  be  proved 
from  Origen,  and  other  Fathers.  That  the  New  Testament 
represents  this  character  as  the  sovereign  of  the  world,  may 
be  proved  by  the  following  passages.  "  All  this  power 
will  I  give  thee,  and  the  Glory  of  them,  (said  the  Tempter 
to  Jesus,  when  he  showed  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the 
Earth,)  for  it  is  delivered  unto  me,  and  to  whomsoever  / 
willy  I  give  it'*  Luke  4.,  Jesus  calls  him  "  the  Prince  of 
this  world  ;"  Jo.  12,  and  elsewhere.  In  his  commission  to 
Paul,  he  calls  embracing  his  Religion,  "  turning  from  dark- 
ness unto  light,  and  from  the  Power  of  Satan  to  God." — 
Acts,  xx vi.  18.  Accordingly  we  find  that  to  become  a 
Christian,  was  considered  as  being  freed  from  the  tyranny 
ef  Satan.  "  God  hath  given  life  to  you,  (says  Paul,)  who 
were  dead  in  offences  and  sins ;  in  which  ye  former- 
ly walked,  according  to  the  course,  (or  constitution)  of 
this  world,  according  to  the  Prince  of  the  Power  of  the  air" 
Ephes.  ii.  1,  and  again,  "  If  our  Gospel  be  covered,  (  or 
hid,)  it  is  covered  among  those  that  are  lost,  among  those 
unbelievers,  whose  minds  the  God  of  this  world  hath  blind- 
ed, to  the  end  that  the  glorious  Gospel  of  Christ  should  not 
enlighten  them."  2  Cor.  iv.  4.,  John  says  in  his  Epistle, 
that  "  the  whole  world  lieth  in  the  power  of  the  wicked 
one,"  and  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  compares  him  to  "  a  strong 
man  armed  keeping  his  goods ;  and  himself  to  one  stronger 
than  he,  who  stripeth  him  of  the  arms  in  which  he  trusted, 
and  gpoileth  his  goods.  "  For  this  purpose  was  the  Son  of 
God  manifested,  that  he  might  destroy  the  works  of  the  De- 


106 

tn7."  1  Jo.  iiL  8.  And  it  is  said,  that  he  came  to  send  forth 
the  captive  into  liberty,  and  to  heal  those  who  were  op- 
pressed of  the  Devil"  men  are  also  said  to  have  been  "  taken 
captive  of  the  Devil,  to  fulfil  his  will."  2  Tim.  ii.  26.  And 
we  find,  that  the  Chiristians  attributed  all  their  sufferings 
to  the  opposition  of  this  Being.  "Put  on  (says  Paul,) 
the  whole  Armour  of  God,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  stand 
against  the  wiles  of  the  Devil.  For  we  struggle  not  against 
flesh  and  blood  only ;  but  against  Principalities,  against 
Powers,  against  the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this  world, 
against  wicked  spirits  in  high  places."  Ephes.  vi.  12. 
Christians  are  also  said  to  be  delivered  by  God  from  the 
power  of  Darkness,  and  to  be  translated  into  the  kingdom 
of  his  dear  Son,"  that  is,  as  Christians  were  considered  as 
being  the  subjects  of  Jesus,  and  the  rest  of  the  world  as  be- 
ing of  the  kingdom  of  Satan,  when  a  man  became  a  Chris- 
tian he  was  translated  from  the  kingdom  of  one,  to  the  king- 
dom of  the  other.  Jesus  accused  the  Devil  as  being  the 
Author  of  all  evil,  as  a  liar,  and  the  Father  of  lies,  and  a 
murderer  of  men  and  of  women  too,  as  appears  in  the  Gos- 
pel, from  the  account  of  the  old  Lady  whose  back  the  De- 
vil had  bowed  down,  for  eighteen  years,  Luke  xiii.  10,  (on 
what  account  it  does  not  appear.)  In  short,  the  New  Tes- 
tament represents  him  as  being  the  source  of  all  evil,  and 
mischief,  and  the  promoter  of  it ;  and  the  whole  world  as 
being  his  subjects,  and  combined  with  him  against  all  good. 

But  how  does  all  this  prove  that  these  notions  were  de- 
rived from  the  Religion  of  the  ancient  Persians  ?  I  answer 
by  requesting  you,  my  reader,  to  peruse  attentively  the  fol- 
lowing account  'of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Reli- 
gion of  Zoroaster,  the  Prophet  of  the  Persians. 

The  Doctrine  of  Zoroaster  was,  that  there  was  one  su- 
preme Being,  independent,  and  self-existing  from  all  Eter- 
nity ;  that  inferior  to  him,  there  were  two  Angels,  one,  the 
Angel  of  Light,  who  is  the  Author  and  Director  of  all 
Good ;  and  the  other,  the  Angel  of  Darkness,  who  is  the 
Author  and  Director  of  all  Evil ;  that  these  two  are  in  a 
perpetual  struggle  with  each  other ;  and  that  where  the  An- 
gel of  Light  prevails,  there  the  most  is  good  ;  and  where 
the  Angel  of  Darkness  prevails,  there  the  most  is  eviL 
That  this  strugle  shall  continue  to  the  end  of  the  world  ; 
that  then  there  shall  be  a  general  resurrection,  and  a  day  of 
Judgment,  wherein  just  retribution  shall  be  rendered  to  all 


107 

according  to  their  works  ;  after  which,  the  Angel  of  dark- 
ness, and  his  followers,  shall  go  into  a  world  of  their  own, 
where  they  shall  suffer  in  darkness  the  punishment  of  their 
evil  deeds.  And  the  Angel  of  Light,  and  his  followers 
shall  also  go  into  a  world  of  their  own,  where  they  shall  re- 
ceive in  everlasting  Light  the  reward  due  to  their  good 
deeds. 

It  is  impossible  but  that  the  reader  must  see  the  agree- 
ment of  the  Doctrines  of  the  New  Testament,  with  all 
this ;  and  since  it  is  undoubted,  that  these  tenets  of  Zoroas- 
ter are  far  more  ancient  than  the  New  Testament,  and 
since,  as  we  have  seen,  that  that  book  is  much  indebted  to 
Oriental  notions  for  many  of  its  Dogmas,  there  is  no  way  of 
accounting  for  this  coincidence  (that  I  know  of)  besides  sup- 
posing the  Devil  of  the  New  Testament  to  be  of  Persian  ori- 
gin. It  is  however  in  my  power  to  make  this  coincidence  still 
more  striking,  from  the  words  of  Jesus  himself,  who  says, 
Mat.  xiii.  24,  "  The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  like  a  man 
who  sowed  good  seed  in  his  field,  but  while  men  slept,  his 
enemy  (mark  the  expression  !)  his  enemy  came,  and  sowed 
tares  among  the  wheat.  But  when  the  blades  sprung  up, 
and  brought  forth  fruit,  then  appeared  the  tares  also.  So 
the  servants  of  the  householder  came  near,  and  said  unto 
him,  '  Sir !  didst  thou  not  sow  good  seed  in  thy  field  ? 
whence  then  hath  it  tares  ?'  And  he  saith  unto  them  an 
enemy  hath  done  this,"  you  know  the  rest  of  the  Parable. 
The  explanation  of  it  is  as  follows,  "  He  who  soweth  the 
good  seed  is  the  Son  ofMan,  and  the  field  is  the  world;  and 
the  good  seed  are  the  Sons  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  tares 
are  the  Sons  of  the  Evil  One,  and  the  Enemy  who  sowed 
them  is  the  Devil."  Here  you  see,  as  far  as  it  goes,  a  pre- 
cise agreement  with  the  Doctrine  of  Zoroaster ;  and  to  com- 
plete the  resemblance,  you  need  but  to  recollect,  that  at  the 
Day  of  Judgment,  according  to  the  words  of  Jesus,  the 
wicked  go  into  the  fire  prepared  for  the  Devil  and  his 
Angels  ;  and  the  righteous  go  into  Life  Eternal  with  the 
Son  of  God, 

But  is  there  not  a  Satan  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament; 
and  is  he  not  there  represented  as  an  evil  and  malevolent 
Angel  ?  I  think  not.  This  notion  probably  arises  from  the 
habit  of  interpreting  the  Old  Testament  by  the  New.  The 
Satan  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament,  is  represented  as 
God's  minister  of  punishment,  and  as  much  his  faithful  ser- 


108 

vant  as  any  of  his  Angels.  The  Prologue  to  the  book  of 
Job  certainly  supposes,  that  this  Angel  of  punishment  by 
Office,  appeared  in  the  court  of  Heaven,  nay,  he  is  ranked 
among  "  the  Sons  of  God."  This  Satan  is  merely  the 
supposed  Chief  of  those  ministers  of  God's  will,  whose 
office  is  to  execute  his  ordered  commands  upon  the  guilty, 
and  who  may  be  sometimes,  as  in  the  case  of  Job,  the 
minister  of  Probation  only,  rather  than  of  Punishment ; 
and  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  be  ashamed  of  his 
office  more  than  the  General  of  an  army,  or  the  Judges  of 
the  criminal  courts  ;  who,  though  they  are  not  unfrequently 
ministers  of  punishment,  are  not  therefore  excluded  the 
royal  presence  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  their  office  is  consi- 
dered as  honourable  ;  i.  e.,  punishment  without  malevolence 
does  not  pollute  the  inflictor.  Consider  the  story  of  the 
destruction  of  Sodom,  Gen.  xix.,  of  Egypt,  Ex.  xxii.  of  Sen- 
nacherib, 1  Kings  xxix.,  35,  also  Joshua  v.  13.  The  term 
Satan  signifies  an  adversary,  and  is  applied  to  any  angel  sent 
upon  an  errand  of  punishment.  For  example,  Num.  xxii, 
23,  "  The  Angel  of  the  Lord  stood  in  the  way,  for  an  ad- 
versary (literally  for  a  Satan)  against  Balaam,  with  his 
sword  drawn  in  his  hand."  "Curse  ye  Meroz  saith  the 
Angel  of  the  Lord,"  whose  office  is  to  punish.  So  also  Ps. 
xxxv.  5,  "  Let  the  Angel  (of  punishment)  of  the  Lord 
chase  them,  (i.  e.  drive  them  before  him;  in  a  military  man- 
ner, pursue  them)  let  their  way  be  dark  and  slippery,  and 
the  Angal  of  the  Lord  following  them." 

2  Sam.  xxiv.  16,  "The  Lord  sent  a  pestilence  upon  Is- 
rael— the  Angel  (of  punishment,)  stretched  forth  his  hand 
and  smote  the  people."  1  Chi  on.  xxi.  16,  "  David  saw  the 
angel  (of  punishment)  having  a  drawn  sword  in  his  hand." 

This  notion  is  referred  to  in  the  Apocryphal  History  of 
Susannah,  verse  59.  "The  Angel  of  the  Lord  waiteth 
with  his  sword  that  he  may  cut  thee  in  two." 

Thus  we  see,  that  the  term  Satan  is  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment applied  to  any  Angel  of  the  Lord  sent  upon  an  errand 
of  punishment  And  the  term  itself  is  so  far  from  being 
reproachful  (for  David  is  said,  1  Sam.  xxix,  4,  to  have  been 
"  a  Satan  to  the  Philistines,")  that  I  am  not  sure,  that  if  I 
had  by  me  a  Hebrew  concordance,  but  I  could  point  out  places, 
where  God  himself  is  represented  as  saying,  that  he  would 
be  an  Adversary  or  a  Satan  to  bad  men,  and  wicked  nations. 


109 

And  though  there  is  in  the  Old  Testament  a  particular  angel 
styled  by  way  of  eminence,  "  The  Satan,"  it  is  so  far  from 
being  evident,  that  he  is  an  evil  Being,  that  I  would  under- 
take to  give  good  reasons  to  prove,  that  this  distinguished 
Angel,  is  the  real  prototype,  from  whence  the  Imposter 
Mahomet  took  the  idea  of  his  "Azrael"  the  Angel  of 
Death ;"  who,  in  the  Koran,  is  certainly  represented  as  being 
as  much  the  faithful  servant  of  God,  as  any  of  the  Angelic 
Hosts. 

In  fine,  the  Doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament  upon  this 
matter  may  be  thus  expressed — "  There  be  spirits  created  for 
vengeance,  which  in  their  fury  lay  on  sore  strokes  ;  in  the 
time  of  Destruction  they  pour  out  their  force,  and  ap- 
pease the  wrath  of  him  that  made  them. — They  shall  rejoice  in 
his  (God's)  commandment,  and  they  shall  be  ready  upon 
earth,  when  need  is  ;  and  when  their  time  is  come,  they 
shall  not  transgress  his  Word."  Ecclesiasticus,  xxxix,  28. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

Paul,  in  his  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  speaks  to 
them  as  possessing  several  spiritual  gifts  conferred  on  them 
by  his  ministration ;  such  as  the  gift  of  prophecy,  discerning 
of  spirits,  and  of  speaking  in  unknown  tongues.  He  gives 
them  directions  about  the  proper  use  of  their  gifts,  and 
speaks  to  them  as  absolutely  possessing  those  gifts,  with 
the  utmost  confidence.  Dr.  Paley,  in  his  Defence  of 
Christianity,  lays  great  stress  upon  the  manner  in  which 
Paul  addresses  the  Corinthians  upon  these  miraculous 
powers  :  and  he  considers  it  as  an  absolute  proof  of  the 
Truth  of  Christianity.  Because,  he  says,  it  is  not  con- 
ceivable, that  Paul  could  have  had  the  boldness,  and  pre- 
sumption to  speak  to  these  men  concerning  the  use,  and 
abuse,  of  these  gifts,  if  they  really  had  them  not 

I  am  ready  to  confess,  that  this  argument  of  Dr.  Paley 

puzzled  me.     For  though  I  was  satisfied,  that  Paul  had 

imposed  upon  their  credulity  many  irrelevant  passages  from 

the  Scriptures  as  proofs  of  Christianity ;  yet  I  could  not 

Q 


110 

imagine,  that  he  could  presume  so  much  upon  their  stu- 
pidity, as  to  give  them  directions  about  the  management  of 
their  mirawlous  powers  ;  which  being  matters  of  fact  known 
to  themselves,  therefore  if  false,  I  conceived  must  place 
Paul  in  their  minds  in  the  light  of  a  banterer,  when  he  told 
them  of  gifts,  which  their  own  consciousness,  I  thought, 
must  make  them  sensible  they  had  not.  I  say  I  was  puz- 
zled with  this  argument,  until  I  happened  to  meet  with 
some  extracts  from  Brown's  "  History  of  the  Shakers," 
which  convinced  me  at  once,  from  the  obvious  likeness  be- 
tween these  Shakers  and  the  primitive  Christians,  that 
Paul  might  have  written  to  the  Corinthians  "  concerning 
their  spiritual  gifts,"  with  perfect  impunity. 

This  Brown  had  been  a  Shaker  himself,  and  while  with 
them,  he  was  as  great  a  believer  in  his  own,  and  their  gifts, 
as  the  Corinthians  could  be  ;  and  since  it  must  be  obvious, 
that  the  gifts  of  these  Shakers  are  mere  self-delusions, 
there  is  then  in  our  own  times  an  example  of  the  gifts  of 
the  primitive  Christians,  "which  enables  us  to  comprehend 
their  nature,  and  character,  perfectly  well. 

Many  of  them,"  (the  Shakers,)  says  Mr.  Brown,  "  pro- 
fessed to  have  visions,  and  to  see  numbers  of  spirits,  as  plain 
as  they  saw  their  brethren  and  sisters  ;  and  to  look  into  the 
invisible  world,  and  to  converse  with  many  of  the  departed 
spirits,  who  had  lived  in  the  different  ages  of  the  world  ; 
and  to  learn,  and  to  see  their  different  states  in  the  world 
of  spirits.  Some  they  saw,  they  said,  were  happy,  and 
others  miserable.  Several  declared,  that  they  often  were 
in  dark  nights  surrounded  with  a  light,  sometimes  in 
their  rooms,  but  more  often,  when  walking  the  road, 
so  strong,  that  they  could  see  to  pick  up  a  pin  ;  which 
light  would  continue,  a  considerable  time,  and  enlighten 
them  on  their  way.  Many  had  gifts  to  speak  languages,  and 
many  miracles  were  said  to  be  wrought,  and  strange  signs, 
and  great  wonders  shown  by  the  believers." 

And  these  poor  creatures  believed,  and  at  this  day  do  be- 
lieve all  this.  They  are  not,  you  will  observe,  artful  im- 
postors, for  the  Shakers  are  certainly  a  harmless,  and  a 
moral  people  ;  and  yet  they  confidently  asserted,  (and  con- 
tinue to  assert,)  that  they  had  these  miraculous  powers  of 
"  discerning  spirits,  speaking  with  tongues,  and  doing  great 
signs  and  wonders,"  Nevertheless,  it  must  be  evident,  that 


Ill 

these  powers  were  conferred  upon  them,  only  by  their  enthu- 
siasm, and  heated  imaginations. 

I  have  heard  of  the  Shakers  before,  and  have  been  in- 
formed, that  those  in  New  England  are  so  convinced  of  their 
miraculous  capabilities,  that  they  have  been  known,  in 
order  to  save  their  neighbours  the  trouble  of  applying  to 
the  tinman,  charitably  to  offer  to  join  the  gaping  seams  of 
their  worn  out  tin  coffee-pots,  and  other  vessels,  "  without 
the  carnal  aid  of  solder"  merely  by  a  touch  of  their  wonder- 
working fingers. 

Mr.  Brown,  in  describing  their  mode  of  conduct,  in  their 
religious  assemblies,  unwittingly  gives  a  striking  exposition 
of  the  1st  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  He  describes  "the 
brethren  and  sisters,"  praying,  singing,  dancing,  and  preach- 
ing in  known,  and  unknown  tongues  ;  and  sticking  out 
their  arms,  and  extatically  following  their  noses  round  the 
church. 

He  says,  respecting  such  as  speak  in  unknown  tongues, 
"  they  have  a  strong  faith  in  this  gift ;  and  think  a  person 
greatly  favoured  who  has  the  gift  of  tongues.  And  at  cer- 
tain times,  when  the  mind  is  overloaded  with  a  fiery,  strong 
zeal,  it  must  have  vent  some  way  or  other ;  their  faith,  or 
belief  at  the  time  being  in  this  gift,  and  a  will  strikes  the 
mind  according  to  their  faith,  and  then  such  break  out  in  a 
fiery,  energetic  manner,  and  speak  they  know  notwhat,  as  I  have 
done  several  times.  Part  of  what  I  spake  at  one  time,  was 
"  Liero  devo  jerankeemango,  ad  sileambano,  durem  subramo, 
deviranto  diacerimango,  jasse  vah  pe  cri,  evanigalio  ;  de  vom 
grom  seb  crinom,  os  vare  cremo  domo" 

"  When  a  person  runs  on  in  this  manner  for  any  length 
of  time,  I  now  thought  it  probable  that  he  would  strike 
into  different  languages,  and  give  some  words  in  each  their 
right  pronunciation  ;  as  I  have  heard  some  men  of  learning 
who  were  present,  say,  a  few  words  were  Hebrew,  three  or 
four  of  Greek,  and  a  few  Latin." 

In  another  place  he  gives  an  account  of  his  maiden  speech 
in  an  unknown  tongue  ;  and  it  is  easy  to  conjecture  how 
he  came  by  his  gift,  by  attending  to  what  passed  be- 
fore he  broke  out.  Here  it  is  :  "  We  danced  for  near  an 
hour,  several  turned  round  like  tops,  and  to  crown  all,  I  had 


112 


gift  to  speak  in  some  other  language  ;  but  the  greatest 
isfortune  was,  that  neither  I,  nor  any  other,  understood  what 
" 


a 

misfortune  was, 
I  said." 


My  reader  will  not  be  surprised  after  this,  at  hearing  him 
say,  that  the  spectators  of  "  these  signs  and  wonders,"  in- 
stead of  being  properly  affected,  considered  the  performers 
as  "  out  of  their  wits." 

Let  us  now  compare  this  account  with  what  Paul  says 
upon  similar  subjects,  in  the  14th  chapter  of  the  1  Ep.  to 
the  Corinthians.  He  advises  them  in  exercising  their  gifts, 
to  a  discreet  use  of  them,  as  follows  :  "  He  who  speaketh 
in  an  unknown  tongue,  speaketh  not  to  men,  but  to  God, 
for  no  man  understandeth  him  ;  howbeit  in  the  spirit  he 
speaketh  mysteries."  Again,  "  For  if  the  trumpet  give  an 
uncertain  sound,  who  shall  prepare  himself  to  battle  ?  So 
likewise  unless  ye  utter  by  the  tongue  words  to  be  under- 
stood, how  shall  it  be  known  what  is  spoken  ?  for  ye  will 
speak  to  the  air."  And  as  others  did  not  understand  the 
Corinthians  speaking  in  unknown  tongues,  so  it  seems  too, 
that  the  Corinthians  themselves  were  in  the  same  unfortu- 
nate predicament  with  the  Shakers,  in  not  knowing  the 
meaning  of  what  they  themselves  said  on  these  occasions. 
This  is  clear  from  this  argument  of  Paul's,  "  Wherefore,  let 
him  that  speaketh  in  an  unknown  tongue,  pray  that  he  may 
interpret"  Why  pray  that  he  may  interpret,  if  he  under- 
stood himself?  Does  a  man  who  speaks  with  understanding, 
a  foreign  language,  need  to  pray  that  he  may  be  enabled 
to  interpret  what  he  says,  in  his  mother  tongue?  Surely 
every  man  who  understands  himself,  can  naturally  do  this  ? 
After  more  to  the  same  purpose,  Paul  wisely  concludes  his 
argument  by  declaring  "  that  he  would  rather  speak  in  the 
church  Jive  words  with  his  understanding,  (i.  e.  knowing 
what  he  said,)  that  he  might  instruct  others  also,  than  ten 
thousand  words  in  an  unknown  tongue."  And  he  fortifies 
his  reasoning  by  this  sensible  remark,  "  If  therefore  the 
whole  church  come  together  into  one  place,  and  all  speak 
in  unknown  tongues,  and  those  that  are  unlearned,  or  unbe- 
lievers come  in,  will  they  not  say,  that  ye  are  mad  f"  (as  the 
spectators  said  of  the  Shakers.) 

He  advises  them  therefore,  to  conduct  their  assemblies 
vrith  less  uproar  than  formerly,  and  exhorts  them  as  fol- 
lows :  "  How  is  it  then  brethren,  when  you  come  together, 


113 

hath  each  of  you  a  psalm,  hath  he  a  doctrine,  hath  he  an 
unknown  tongue,  hath  he  a  revelation  ?  Let  all  things  he 
done  to  edifying.  Now  if  any  man  speak  in  an  unknown 
tongue,  let  it  be  by  two,  or  at  most  by  three,  and  that  in 
succession,  and  let  one  interpret ;  but  if  there  be  no  inter- 
preter, let  such  keep  silence  in  the  church,  and  let  him 
speak  to  himself  and  to  God.  And  let  two  or  three  Pro- 
phets speak,  and  let  the  others  discern.  But  if  any  thing 
be  revealed  to  another  who  sitteth  by,  let  the  first  keep  si- 
lence. For  ye  may  all  prophecy,  one  by  one,  that  all  may 
learn,  and  all  may  be  exhorted." 

I  presume  it  will  be  needless  to  point  out  more  particu- 
larly, the  perfect  correspondence  between  "the  spiritual 
gifts"  of  the  Corinthians,  and  those  of  the  Shakers.  And  I 
would  ask  the  venerable  Paley,  if  it  were  now  possible, 
whether  an  apostolical  Epistle  of  Ann  Lee,  William  Lee,  or 
Whitaker,  (the  spiritual  mother,  and  fathers  of  the  Shakers,) 
addressed  to  them,  and  seriously  giving  directions  about  the 
use  of  "their  gifts  of  working  miracles,  and  speaking 
with  tongues,"  would  be  sufficient  to  prove  that  they  really 
had  those  gifts.  And  moreover,  (to  make  the  cases  more 
analogous,)  suppose  that  the  Shakers  from  this  time  be- 
come the  dominant  sect  throughout  the  religious  world,  and 
kept  the  upper  hand  during  a  series  of  a  thousand  or  two 
thousand  years ;  taking  especial  care  to  collect  and  burn  up 
every  writing  of  their  enemies,  and  opposers  ;  how  should 
we  (supposing  ourselves  all  the  while  invisible  spectators  of 
the  thing,)  how  should  we  pity  our  posterity,  who  at  the 
end  of  that  period,  should  be  gravely  told  by  the  learned, 
and  mitred  advocates  of  Shakerism,  that  the  miracles  of  the 
founders,  and  first  followers  of  their  religion  were  certainly 
true,  for  that  they  were  honest  and  good  men,  with  no  mo- 
tive to  deceive,  and  had  addressed  letters  to  their  first  con- 
verts, wherein  they  make  express  mention  of  their  possessing 
these  gifts ;  and  give  in  the  simplest,  and  most  unassuming 
manner,  directions  for  using  them.  Suppose  then  that  our 
posterity,  having  been  deprived  by  the  prudential  care  of 
the  old  fathers  of  the  then  established  church,  of  the  means 
of  detecting  the  fallacy  which  we  possess  ;  suppose  that 
they  should  believe  all  this  :  and  devoutly  praise  God  every 
day  for  confirming  the  doctrines  of  his  servants  Lee  and 
Whitaker,  "  with  signs  following."  How  should  we  pity 
their  delusion,  and  what  should  we  think  of  the  unlucky 
authors  of  it  ? 


114 

From  all  this,  I  think  my  reader  must  be  sensible  how 
extremely  fallacious  are  all  proofs  of  doctrines,  pretend- 
ed to  be  from  God,  derived  from  miracles  said  to  have  been 
wrought  in  proof  of  their  Divine  authority. 

Miracles  are  related  to  have  been  performed  in  support 
of  all  religions  without  exception  :  even  the  followers  of 
Mahomet,  though  he  did  not  claim  the  power  of  working 
miracles,  have  said  that  he  did.  And  they  will  tell  you, 
that  in  proof  of  his  mission,  he  in  the  presence  of  hundreds, 
divided  the  moon  with  his  finger,  and  put  half  of  it  in  his 
pocket  !* 

*  1  will  here  lay  before  the  reader,  the  arguments  advanced  by  the 
Mahometans  in  behalf  of  the  miracles  of  their  Prophet,  extracted 
from  the  learned  Reland's  account  of  Mahometanism.  They  say  that 
— "  the  miiacles  of  Mahomet  and  his  followers  have  been  recorded  in 
innumerable  volumes  of  the  most  famous,  learned,  pious,  and  subtle 
Doctors  of  the  Mahometan  Faith,  who  let  nothing  pass  without  the 
strictest  and  severest  examination,  and  whose  tradition  therefore  is  un- 
exceptionable among  them  :  that  they  were  known  throughout  all  the 
Regions  of  Arabia,  and  transmitted  by  common,  and  universal  Tradi- 
tion from  Father  to  Son,  from  generation  to  generation  ;  That  the 
books  of  Interpreters,  and  Commentators  on  the  Koran,  the  books  of 
Historians,  especially  such  as  oive  an  account  of  Mahomet's  Life,  and 
actions,  the  books  of  Annalists,  and  Lawyers  -•  the  books  of  Mathema- 
ticians and  Philosophers  :  and  last  of  all,  the  books  of  both  Jews  and 
Christians  concerning  Mahomet,  are  full  of  his  miracles.  That  if  the 
authority  of  so  many  great  and  wise  Doctors  be  denied,  then  for  their 
part,  they  cannot  see  but  that  a  universal  scepticism  as  to  all  other  ac- 
counts of  miracles  must  obtain  among  people  of  all  persuasions.  For 
authority  being  the  only  proof  of  facts  done  out  of  our  time,  or  out 
of  our  sight,  if  that  be  denied,  there  is  no  way  to  come  to  the  certain- 
ty of  any  such,  without  immediate  inspiration;  and  all  accounts  of 
matters  recorded  in  History  must  be  doubtful,  and  precarious." 

"  And  these  witnesses  would  not  have  dared  to  assert  these  miracles 
unless  they  were  true  :  for  such  as  forged  any  miracles  for  his,  which 
he  really  did  not,  lay  under  a  hearty  curse  from  the  Prophet.  For  it 
was  a  received  Tradition  among  the  Faithful,  that  Mahomet  denounc- 
ed Hell  and  Damnatianto  all  those  who  shonld  tell  any  lies  of  him.  So 
that  none  who  believed  in  Mahomet  durst  attribute  miracles  to  him 
which  he  was  not  concerned  in  ;  and  those  who  believed  not  in  him, 
would  certainly  neve"  have  given  him  the  honour  of  working  any,  unless 
he  had  done  so."  Christian  Reader  !  thou  seest  how  much  can  be  said, 
and  how  many  respectable  witnesses  and  authorities  can  be  adduced  to 
prove  that  Mahomet  wrought  miracles  ;  canst  thou  adduce  more,  or 
better  authorities  in  behalf  of  the  miracles  or  the  New  Testament  ? 
Art  thou  not  rather  satisfied  how  fallacious  the  evidence  of  Testimony 
is  in  all  such  oases  ? 

This  is  not  all  that  the  Mahometan  might  urge  in  behalf  of  his 
Prophet.  For  he  might  tell  the  Christian,  boRSting  that  Jesus  and  his 
Apostles  converted  the  Roman  World  from  Idolatry, — that  they  over- 
threw one  system  of  Idolatry,  only  to  build  up  another  ;  since  the  wor- 


115 

Speaking  of  the  gift  of  healing  diseases,  which  the  Primi- 
tive Christians  claimed,  Dr.  Middleton  in  his  free  inquiry 
observes — "  But  be  that  as  it  will,  the  pretence  of  curing 
diseases  by  a  miraculous  power,  was  so  successfully  main- 
tained in  the  Heathen  world  by  fraud,  and  craft,  that  when 
it  came  to  be  challenged  by  the  Christians,  it  was  not  capa- 
ble of  exciting  any  attention  to  it  among  those,  who  them- 
selves pretended  to  the  same  power  ;  which,  though  the  cer- 
tain effect  of  imposture,  was  yet  managed  with  so" much  art, 
that  the  Christians  could  neither  deny  nor  detect  it ;  but  in- 
sisted always  that  it  was  performed  by  Demons,  or  evil 
spirits,  deluding  mankind  to  their  ruin ;  and  from  the  sup- 
posed reality  of  the  fact  they  inferred  the  reasonableness  of  be- 
lieving what  was  more  credibly  affirmed  by  the  Christians 
to  be  performed  by  the  power  of  the  true  God.  "  We  do  not 
deny"  says  Athenagoras,  "  that,  in  different  places,  cities, 
and  countries,  there  are  some  extraordinary  works  perform- 
ed in  the  name  of  Idols,  from  which  some  have  received  bene- 
fit, others  harm."  And  then  he  goes  on  to  prove  that  they 
were  not  performed  by  God,  but  by  Demons  !  Doctor  Mid- 
dleton then  proceeds,  (p.  77.)  "  whatever  proof,  then,  the 
primitive  Church  had  among  themselves,  yet  it  could  have 
but  little  effect  towards  making  proselytes  among  those  who 
pretended  to  the  same  gift ;  possessed  more  largely,  and 
exerted  more  openly,  than  in  the  private  assemblies  of  the 
Christians.  For  in  the  Temple  of  Esculapius,  all  kinds  of 
diseases  were  believed  to  be  publicly  cured  by  the  pretend- 
ship  of  Jesus,  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  the  Saints,  and  their  images,  was 
established  in  a  few  hundred  years  after  Jesus,  and  continues  to  this 
day  ;  an  Idolatry  as  rank,  and  much  more  inexcusable  than  the  wor- 
ship of  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans.  Whereas,  Mahomet  cut  up, 
root  and  branch,  both  Christian  and  Pagan  Idolatry  and  proclaimed 
one  only  God  as  the  object  of  adoration.  And  if  the  Christian  should 
urge  the  rapid  propagation  of  Christianity,  the  Mahometan  might  re- 
ply, that  Mahomet  was  a  poor  camel-driver,  but  that  Islamism  made 
more  progress  in  one  hundred  years,  than  Christianity  did  in  a  thou- 
sand ;  that  it  was  embraced  by  the  noble,  the  great,  the  wise,  and  the 
learned,  almost  as  soon  as  it  appeared  :  whereas,  Christianity  waa 
skulking  and  creeping  among  the  mob  of  the  Roman  Empire  for  some, 
hundred  years  before  it  dared  to  raise  its  head  in  public  view.  If  the 
Christian  should  reply  to  this,  by  ascribing  the  success  of  Mahometan- 
ism  to  the  sword,  the  Mahometan  might  reply,  with  truth,  that  it  was 
a  vulgar  error  ;  for  that  vastly  more  nations  embraced  Islamism  volun- 
tarily, than  there  were  who  freefy  received  Christianity  ;  and  he 
might  remind  him,  how  much  Christianity  owed  to  the  accession  of 
Constantine  :  to  Charlemagne;  and  the  Teutonic  Knights  ;  and  bid 
him  recollect  that  the  monks  were  assisted  by  soldiers  to  convert  to 
Christianity  almost  every  nation  in  Modern  Europe. 


116 

ed  help  of  that  Deity  :  in  proof  of  which,  there  were  erect- 
ed in  each  Temple  columns,  or  tables  of  brass,  and  marble,  on 
which  a  distinct  narrative  of  each  particular  cure  was  in- 
scribed."     He   also   observes    that — "  Pausanias    writes, 
*  that  in  the  temple  at  Epidaurus  there  were  many  columns 
anciently  of  this  kind,  and  six  of  them  remaining  in  his 
time,  inscribed  with  the  names  of  men  and  women  cured  by 
the  God,  with  an  account  of  their  several  cases,  and  the 
method  of  their  cure  ;  and  that  there  was  an  old  pillar  be- 
sides, which  stood  apart,  dedicated  to  the  memory  of  Hip- 
polytus,  who  had  been  raised  from  the  dead  !'  Strabo,  also, 
another  grave  writer,   informs  us,  that  these  temples  were 
constantly  filled  with  the  sick,  imploring  the  help  of  the 
God  ;  and  that  they  had  tables  hanging  around  them,  in 
which  all  the  miraculous  cures  were  described."     Dr.  Mid- 
dleton  then  proceeds  thus — "  There  is  a  remarkable  frag- 
ment of  one  of  these  tables  still  extant,  and  exhibited  by 
Gruter  in  his  collection,  as  it  was  found  in  the  ruins  of 
Esculapius'  Temple,  in  the  island  of  the  Tyber  at  Rome, 
which  gives  an  account  of  two  blind  men  restored  to  sight  by 
Esculapius  in  the  open  vieio,  and  with  loud  acclamations  of 
the  people,  acknowledging  the  manifest  power  of  the  God  !  /" 
Upon  which  he  remarks,  that  "  the  learned  Montfaucon 
makes  this  reflection,  *  that  in  this  are  seen  either  the  wiles 
of  the  Devil,  or  the  tricks  of  Pagan  Priests,  suboniing  men 
to  counterfeit  diseases,  and  miraculous  cures."     He  then 
proceeds,  (p.  79.)  "  Now,  though  nothing  can  support  the 
belief,  or  credit  of  miracles  more  authentically  than  public 
monuments  erected  in  proof  and  memory  of  them  at  the  time 
they  were  performed,  yet,  in  defiance  of  that  authority,  it  Is 
certain  all  these  Heathen  miracles  were  pure  forgeries,  con- 
trived to  delude  the  multitude  ;  and  in  truth,  this  particu- 
lar claim  of  curing  diseases  miraculously,  affords  great  room 
for  such  a  delusion,  and  a  wide  field  for  the  exercise  of 
craft." 

I  need  not  observe,  that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the 
miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  are  casting  out 
Devils,  and  healing  diseases,  Powers  claimed  by  the  Hea- 
thens as  well  as  these  Christians :  and  these  miracles,  (un- 
doubtedly false)  are  as  well,  if  not  far  better  authenticated 
than  those  of  the  New  Testament:  for  books  may  \&  forged, 
but  public  monuments  of  brass  and  marble  are  not  so  capa- 
ble of  being  so  :  and  these  are  always  considered  as  better 
evidence  for  facts  than  books.  What  then  will  the  Christian 


117 

say  to  this  ?  for  since  these  miracles,  recorded  on  brass  and 
marble,  inscribed  whfo  the  narratives  of  them  almost  imme- 
diately after  the  occurrence  of  them,  are  unquestionably  Lies  ; 
what  can  he  pretend  to  say  of  those  recorded  in  books,  cer- 
tainly written  many  years  after  the  events  they  record,  and, 
as  will  be  proved  hereafter,  more  than  suspected  to  be  apo- 
cryphal 9  And  what  would  become  of  truth  ?  and  who 
would  be  able  to  distinguish  truth  from  falsehood,  in 
matters  of  Religion,  if  attested  miracles,  such  as  these, 
are  sufficient  to  establish  the  divine  authority  of  Doc- 
trines said  to  be  confirmed  by  them  ?  Miracles  are 
as  numerous,  and  better  authenticated  on  the  part  of  Ju- 
piter, Apollo,  and  Esculapius,  than  on  the  part  of  Chris- 
tianity. They  are  strong  on  the  part  of  Popery  against 
Protestantism :  for  the  Roman  Catholic  Churches  in  Eu- 
rope are  full  of  monumental  records  of  miracles  wrought  by 
the  Virgin  Mary  and  the  Saints,  in  favour  of  their  worship- 
pers. Nay,  there  never  were  miracles  better  proved,  as  far 
as  human  testimony  could  prove  them,  than  the  famous  mi- 
racle mentioned  by  Gibbon  in  his  History  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  where  he  relates  the  story  of  the  Arian  Vandals 
cutting  out  the  tongues  of  a  great  number  of  orthodox 
Athanasians,  who,  strange  to  tell,  preached  as  much  to  the 
purpose,  in  favour  of  the  Trinity,  without  their  tongues,  as 
they  did  with  them  !  !  Never  was  there  a  miracle  better 
authenticated  by  testimony,  than  this.  It  is  mentioned  by 
all  the  Christian  writers  of  that  age.  It  is  mentioned  by 
two  contemporary  Roman  historians,  one  of  whom  lived  in 
Constantinople,  and  who  says  he  looked  into  the  mouths  of 
some  of  these  confessors,  who  had  in  fact  their  tongues  en- 
tirely cut  out  by  the  roots ;  and  it  is  recorded  in  the  archives 
of  the  Eastern  Empire. 

Is  not  this  testimony  enough  ;  and  yet,  is  it  sufficient  to 
prove  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ?  Is  it  adequate  to  prove, 
that  the  "  ancient  of  days"  became  a  little  child ;  was  born 
of  a  woman,  suckled,  &c.  &c.;  and  that  "He  who  liveth  for 
ever  and  ever,"  was  whipped,  was  hanged,  and  died  upon  the 
cross,  and  was  buried  ?  Can  this  miracle,  well  attested  as 
it  is,  prove  for  truths,  such  strange,  such  shocking  things  as 
these  ? 

The  miracles  of  the  Abbe  Paris  too,  are  proved  to  be 
true,  as  far  as  testimony  can  prove  any  thing  of  the  kind. — 
R 


118 

For  they  happened  within  a  hundred  years,  were  seen  by 
many,  and  were  sworn  to  before  the  magistrates,  by  some  of 
the  most  respectable  inhabitants  of  the  City  of  Paris.  How 
can  men,  who  pretend  to  believe  the  miracles  of  the  New 
Testament  upon  such  meagre  evidence  as  they  have  in  their 
favour,  consistently  reject  the  miracles  of  the  Abbe  Paris  ? 
attested  by  evidence,  recent,  respectable,  and  so  strong,  that 
to  this  day,  the  juggle,  and  the  means  by  which  so  many  re- 
spectable people  were  imposed  upon,  have  never  yet  beer* 
thoroughly  developed  and  explained. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

In  the  18th  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  God  says,  "  The 
Prophet  which  shall  presume  to  speak  a  word  in  my  name, 
which  I  have  not  commanded  him  to  speak,  or  that  shall 
speak  in  the  name  of  other  Gods,  even  that  Prophet  shall 
die.  And  if  thou  say  in  thine  heart,  how  shall  we  know  (or 
distinguish)  the  word  which  the  Lord  hath  not  spoken  ?" — 
Here  is  the  criterion.  "  When  a  Prophet  speaketh  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  if  the  thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass, 
that  is  the  thing  which  the  Lord  hath  not  spoken.  That 
Prophet  hath  spoken  presumptuously  ;  thou  shalt  not  be 
afraid  of  him." 

Again,  Deut.  13,  "If  there  arise  among  you,  a  Prophet, 
or  a  dreamer  of  dreams,  and  give  you  a  sign  or  a  wonder 
(i.  e.  a  miracle,)  and  the  sign  or  wonder  come  to  pass,  where- 
of he  spake  unto  thee,  saying,  let  us  go  after  other  Gods, 
which  thou  hast  not  known,  and  let  us  serve  them,  thou  shalt 
not  hearken  unto  the  words  of  that  Prophet,  or  that  dreamer 
of  dreams  ;  for  the  Lord  your  God  proved  (or  tryeth)  you, 
to  know  whether  ye  love  the  Lord  your  God  with  all  your 
heart,  and  with  all  your  soul." 

And  now  Christian  reader,  I  ask  you  what  you  think  of 
miracles,  or  "  signs  and  wonders,"  as  proof  of  a  divine  mis- 
sion, to  teach  doctrines  novel  and  innovating,  after  such  clear 
and  unequivocal  language  as  this,  from  such  high  authority  ? 
I  am  sure,  that  if  you  are  a  sincere  lover  of  truth,  you  must 
certainly  abandon  that  ground  as  untenable.  For,  from  these 


119 

directions,  the  Jews  were  commanded  these  things.  1. 
That  the  Prophet  who  presumes  to  speak  a  word,  as  from 
God,  which  God  hath  not  commanded  him  to  speak,  must 
be  put  to  death.  2.  That  the  test,  or  criterion  by  which 
they  are  to  discern  a  false  Prophet  from  a  true  one,  is  this : 
not  his  miracles,  but  the  fulfilment  of  his  words.  If  what  he 
says  comes  to  pass,  he  is  a  true  Prophet  ;  if  the  event  fore- 
told does  not  take  place,  he  has  spoken  presumptuously,  and 
must  die  the  death.  3.  "  If  any  man  arise  in  Israel,"  and 
advise,  or  teach  them  to  worship  any  other  besides  Jehovah ; 
and  in  proof  of  the  divinity  of  his  mission  promise  a  sign, 
or  a  wonder,  and  in  fact  does  bring  to  pass  the  sign  or  won- 
der promised,  he  is  nevertheless  not  to  be  hearkened  to  ;  but 
be  put  to  death.  And  these  criterions,  given  by  God,  or 
Moses,  as  the  means  whereby  they  might  know  a  true  Pro- 
phet from  a  false  one,  most  exquisitely  prove  his  wisdom 
and  foresight.  For  if  he  had  not  expressly  excluded  mira- 
cles, or  "  signs  and  wonders,"  from  being  a  proof  of  the  di- 
vinity of  doctrines  ;  the  barriers  which  divided  his  religion 
from  those  of  Idolaters,  must  have  been  broken  down ;  since, 
as  we  have  seen,  well  attested  miracles  (meaning  always  by 
miracles,  "  signs  and  wonders,"  brought  to  pass  by  human 
agency,}  are  related  to  have  been  performed  in  proof  of  the 
divinity  of  every  religion  under  Heaven.  But  veritable 
prophecy  is,  and  can  be  a  proof  proper  only  to  a  true  Reve- 
lation, because  none  can  know  what  is  to  come  but  God, 
and  those  sent  by  him.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  the 
Jewish  Prophets  were  not  acknowledged  as  such,  but  on  ac- 
count of  their  foretelling  the  truth,  or  being  supposed  to  do  so. 

Thus  it  is  said,  1  Sam.  iii.  20,  "  And  all  Israel,  from 
Dan  even  to  Beersheba,  knew,  that  Samuel  was  established 
to  be  a  Prophet  of  the  Lord."  Why  ?  Because  he  perform- 
ed miracles  ?  No  !  he  performed  none.  ,  But  he  was  known 
as  a  Prophet  because  "  the  Lord  was  with  him,  and  let  none 
of  his  words  fall  to  the  ground,"  i.  e.  fail  of  their  accom- 
plishment. The  same  may  be  said  of  all  the  Hebrew  Pro- 
phets, from  Nathan  to  Malachi.  For  though  Elijah,  and 
Elisha  performed  miracles,  yet  it  was  not  in  proof  of  their 
mission,  for  that  was  established  before  ;  but  these  miracles 
were  occasional  acts  of  beneficence,  or  protection,  but  were 
never  considered,  or  offered  by  them  as  proofs  of  their  being 
sent  from  God. 

These  things  being  by  this  time,  it  is  hoped,  made  plain, 


120 

and  evident,  let  us  now  test  the  character  of  Jesus  as  a 
true  Prophet,  by  the  criteria,  by  Christians,  and  by  the 
Jews  believed  to  be  given  by  God.  If  his  prophecies  were 
fulfilled,  and  if  he  taught  the  worship  of  no  other  being  be- 
sides Jehovah,  he  was,  according  to  the  Old  Testament,  a 
true  Prophet.  But  if  any  of  his  prophecies  were  not  ful- 
filled, or,  if  he  taught  the  worship  of  any  other  Being  be- 
sides Jehovah,  he  was  not  a  true  Prophet. 

And  here  it  must  be  recollected,  that  those  prophecies  of 
Jesus  only,  can  be  brought  forward  in  this  question,  which 
were  committed  to  writing,  before  the  event  foretold  came  to 
pass  ;  and  therefore  all  Jesus's  prophecies  concerning  the 
manner,  and  circumstances  of  his  death,  &c.  must  be  set  aside, 
as  all  those  events  are  allowed  to  have  taken  place  before 
any  of  the  Gospels  were  written  ;  and  of  course  it  is  not 
certain,  that  Jesus  did  actually  foretel  them.  This  is  ac- 
knowledged by  Christians  ;  and  accordingly  they  confine 
themselves  to  bringing  forward  as  conclusive  evidence  in 
their  favour,  his  Prophecy  of  the  Destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
and  the  events  following.  Here  it  is,  Luke  xxi.  21.:  "  When 
ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies,  then  know 
that  the  desolation  thereof  is  nigh.  Then  let  them  which 
are  in  Judea  flee  to  the  mountains,  and  them  which  are  in 
the  midst  of  it,  depart  out,  and  let  not  them  which  are  in 
the  country,  enter  thereinto.  For  these  be  the  days  of 
vengeance,  that  all  things  which  are  written  may  be  fulfilled. 
But  woe  unto  them  that  are  with  child,  and  to  them  which 
give  suck  in  those  days.  For  there  shall  be  great  distress 
in  the  land,  and  wrath  upon  this  people.  And  they  shall 
fell  by  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  shall  be  led  away  captive 
into  all  nations,  and  Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down  of 
the  Gentiles,  until  the  times  of  the  Gentiles  be  fulfilled. 
And  there  shall  be  signs  in  the  sun,  and  in  the  moon,  and 
hi  the  stars,  and  upon  the  earth,  distress  of  nations  with 
perplexity,  the  sea  and  waves  roaring,  men's  hearts  failing 
them  for  fear,  and  for  looking  after  those  things  which  are 
coming  on  the  earth  ;  for  the  powers  of  the  heavens  shall 
be  shaken.  And  then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  Man  com- 
ing in  a  cloud,  with  power,  and  great  glory.  And  when 
these  things  begin  to  come  to  pass,  then  look  up,  and  lift 
up  your  heads  ;  for  your  redemption  draweth  nigh.  And  he 
spake  to  them  a  parable,  Behold  the  fig  tree  and  all  the 
trees.  When  they  now  shoot  forth,  ye  see,  and  know  of 
your  ownselves,  that  summer  is  now  nigh  at  hand.  So 


121 

likewise  ye,  when  ye  see  these  things  come  to  pass,  know 
ye  that  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  nigh  at  hand.  Verily 
I  say  unto  you,  this  generation  shall  not  pass  away  till  all 
be  fulfilled.  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my 
words  shall  not  pass  away." 

Such  is  the  Prophecy,  and  on  it  I  would  remark,  first, 
that  what  Jesus  here  foretells  concerning  Jerusalem  did  in 
fact  come  to  pass.  But  that  was  not  a  fulfilment  of  his 
prophecy,  but  of  Daniel's,  who  did,  as  is  set  down  in  the 
7th  chapter  of  this  work,  expressly  foretell  the  utter  de- 
struction of  the  city  and  the  temple.  And  it  was  from 
Daniel  that  Jesus  obtained  his  knowledge  of  the  approach 
of  that  event.  For  he  expressly  cites  Daniel,  Mat.  xxiv.  15  ; 
Mark  xiii.  14;  and  you  will  please  to  observe  reader,  that 
he  refers  to  him  in  this  quotation  from  Luke  in  the  words, 
"  these  be  the  days  of  vengeance  that  all  things  ivhich  are 
written  may  be  fulfilled.  So  that  in  foretelling  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  he  no  did  more  than  any  Jew  of  that  age, 
who  attentively  read  their  Scriptures,  could  have  done,  and 
been  no  Prophet  either. 

2.  It  would  have  been  better  for  his  reputation  as  a  Pro- 
phet, if  he  had  stopped  short  where  Daniel  stopped.  For 
what  he  goes  on  to  foretell  has  not  been  fulfilled.  For  he 
proceeds  to  say,  that  "  there  shall  be  signs  in  the  Sun,  and 
the  Moon,  and  the  Stars,  &c."  All  this  is  taken  from  the 
2nd  chapter  of  Joel,  who  says  that  such  things  shall  take 
place  ;  not  however  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  in 
"  the  latter  days,"  at  the  time  of  the  restoration  of  Israel. 
So  that  here  Jesus  has  been  rather  unlucky.  For,  in  truth, 
there  were  no  signs  in  the  Sun,  and  the  Moon,  and  the 
Stars,  at  that  time  ;  neither  was  there  upon  earth  any 
"  great  distress  of  nations,"  except  in  Judea.  Nor  were 
"  the  Powers  of  Heaven"  shaken.  Certainly,  they  did  not 
see  Jesus  "  coming  in  the  clouds  of  Heaven,  with  power, 
and  great  glory  ;"  and  most  assuredly,  that  generation  did 
pass  away,  and  many  others  since,  and  "  all  these  things" 
have  not  been  fulfilled. 

I  know  very  well,  and  have  often  smiled  over  the  contri- 
vances by  which  learned  Christians  have  endeavoured  to 
save  the  credit  of  this  Prophecy.  They  say  that — it  is  a 
figurative  Prophecy  relating  entirely  to  the  Destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  which  did  hi  fact  take  place  in  that  generation ; 


122 

that — the  expressions  about  the  "  distress  of  nations,"  and 
"the  sea  and  waves  roaring,"  the  "  signs  in  Heaven,  &c." 
are  merely  poetical ;  and  that  the  shaking  of  "  the  powers 
of  Heaven"  was  merely  the  shaking  and  pulling  down  the 
stones  of  the  Temple  figuratively  called  Heaven  !  !  and 
that  the  glorious  coming  of  Jesus  "  in  the  clouds  of  Hea- 
ven, with  power,  and  great  glory,"  meant  merely,  that  he 
sent  Titus,  and  the  Romans,  to  destroy  Jerusalem,  or  per- 
haps might  have  been  an  invisible  spectator  himself. 

The  reader  will  easily  see,  that  all  this  is  nonsense.  And 
the  Commentator  Grotius,  after  meddling  a  great  while  in 
this  troublesome  business,  at  length  ventures  to  insinuate, 
that  God  might  have  suffered  Jesus  to  be  in  a  mistake  about 
the  time  of  his  second  dming,  and  to  tell  the  Apostles 
what  he  did,  for  the  sake  of  keeping  up  their  spirits  ! 

But  to  annihilate  the  figurative  Hypothesis  of  these  well- 
meaning  Commentators  at  once,  it  will  be  only  necessary  to 
bring  forward  the  testimony  following.  1. — The  other 
Evangelists  make  an  express  distinction  between  the  Des- 
truction of  Jerusalem,  and  the  coming  of  Jesus :  and  not 
only  so,  but  represent  him  as  saying,  that  after  that  event,  i.  e. 
of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  "  in  those  days,"  i.  e.  in  the 
same  aera  in  which  that  event  took  place,  "  the  Son  of  man 
shall  come,"  &c.  Witness  for  me,  Mark,  ch.  xiii.  24. — 
"  But  in  those  days,  after  that  tribulation,  [i.  e.  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem]  shall  the  sun  be  darkened,  and  the  moon 
shall  not  give  her  light,  and  the  stars  of  Heaven  shall  fall, 
and  the  Powers  that  are  in  Heaven  shall  be  shaken.  And 
then  shall  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  the  clouds 
with  power  and  glory ;  and  then  shall  he  send  his  angels, 
and  shall  gather  his  elect  from  the  four  winds,  from  the  ut- 
termost part  of  the  Earth,  to  the  uttermost  part  of  Hea- 
ven.— Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  that  this  generation  shall  not 
pass,  till  all  these  things  be  accomplished."  This  is  deci- 
sive, and  cannot  be  evaded. 

2.  The  Apostles,  and  Primitive  Christians  believed,  that 
Jesus  would  come  in  that  generation,  as  is  evident  from  many 
passages  of  the  New  Testament.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians  prove  this,  and  contain  an  argument  to  them 
intended  to  allay  their  terrors,  or  their  impatience.  John 
says  in  his  first  Epistle,  chapter  ii.  18,  "  Little  children,  it 
is  the  last  hour  ;  and  as  ye  have  heard  that  Antichrist  should 


123 

come,  even  now  (or  already)  there  are  many  Antichrists, 
whereby  we  know  that  it  is  the  last  hour."  Many  passages 
of  similar  import  might  be  brought  forward.  The  meaning 
of  it  is  this — It  appears  from  Paul's  2nd  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians,  that  just  before  the  second  coming  of  Jesus 
there  was  a  personage  to  appear  who  was  to  be  called  Anti- 
christ i.  e.  an  Enemy  to  the  Messiah.  (This  notion  they 
got  from  the  interpretation  given  by  the  angel  of  the  vision 
of  the  "  little  horn,"  in  Daniel.)  John,  therefore,  seeing' 
many  Antichrists,  i.  e.  opposers  of  the  pretensions  of  Je-^ 
sus,  considered  the  sign,  and  thus  knew  that  it  was  "  the 
last  hour"  and  that  his  master  was  soon  to  appear. 

It  appears  from  the  2nd  Epistle  of  Peter,  chapter,  iii.  that 
there  were  many  in  his  days  who  scoffed  at  his  master,  say- 
ing, contemptuously,  "  where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming?* 
And  Peter  replies  by  telling  them,  that  their  contempt  is 
misplaced,  for  that  "  one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand 
years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day."  John,  in  the  1st 
chapter  of  Revelations  says,  concerning  the  coming  of  Jesus, 
"  Behold  he  cometh  with  clouds,  and  every  eye  shall  see  him, 
and  they  also  which  pierced  him,  and  all  kindreds  of  the  earth 
shall  wail  because  of  him."  And  in  the  last  chapter  of  Re- 
velations he  represents  Jesus  as  saying,  "  Surely  /  come 
quickly"  ! 

In  short,  the  Apostles,  when  they  wanted  to  encourage 
their  desponding  Proselytes,  they  usually  did  it  with  such 
words  as  these  "  be  anxious  for  nothing, .  the  Lord  is  at 
hand" — "  Behold  !  the  Judge  standeth  before  the  door" 
— "  Be  patient,  therefore,  Brethren,  (says  James)  for  the 
coming  of  the  Lord  draweth  nigh"  And  this  persuasion 
did  not  end,  as  might  be  expected,  with  that  century  ;  for 
we  find  that  the  Heathens  frequently  laughed  at  the  ex- 
pectations of  the  Primitive  Christians,  who,  till  the  fourth 
century,  never  gave  up  the  expectation  of  the  impending 
advent  of  their  master.  Nay,  so  rooted  was  this  idea  in 
their  minds,  that,  understanding  the  words  of  Jesus  con- 
cerning John,  "  if  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is 
that  to  thee,"  to  mean  that  that  disciple  should  not  die,  but 
survive  till  the  glorious  appearance  of  his  Lord,  so  far  were 
they  from  being  convinced  of  the  vanity  of  their  expecta- 
tions by  that  Apostle's  actual  decease,  that  they  insisted,  that, 
though  he  was  buried,  he  was  not  dead,  but  only  slept,  and 
that  the  earth  over  his  body  rose  and  fell  with  the  action  of 
his  breathing  I  ! 


124 

It  is  now  hardly  necessary  to  add,  that  Jesus  did  not  at 
all  answer  the  character  of  a  true  Prophet,  when  tested  by 
the  criterion  laid  down  in  Deuteronomy,  for  ascertaining  the 
truth  of  the  claims  of  a  prophet  to  a  divine  mission. 

Let  us  now  see  whether  he  taught  the  worship  of  other 
Beings  beside  Jehovah,  for  if  he  did.,  the  other  test  laid  down 
in  Deuteronomy  will  also  decide  against  him.  Now  did  he 
not  command  the  worship  of  himself  in  these  words  "  all 
men  should  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honour  the  Father"  ? 
This  certainly  commands  to  render  to  Jesus  the  same  ho- 
mage which  is  rendered  to  God.  I  might  prove  that  his 
Disciples  did  worship  him,  by  referring  to  many  passages  in 
the  New  Testament,  especially  in  the  Revelations;  in  the 
latter  part  of  which  Jesus  is  represented  as  saying,  "  I  am 
the  Alpha,  and  the  Omega,  the  beginning  and  the  end,  the 
first  and  the  last,"  terms  applied  to  Jehovah,  in  Isaiah,  where 
God  says,  (as  if  in  express  opposition  to  such  doctrine)  that 
"  there  is  no  God  with  him  :  He  knows  not  any ;  there  was 
none  before  him,  neither  shall  there  be  any  after  him."  I 
could  also  adduce  many  passages  relating  to  Jehovah  of 
Hosts,  quoted  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  applied  in  the 
New  to  Jesus.  Witness  the  folllowing:  Jo.  xii.  41,  alludes  to 
Isaiah  vi.  5;  Rev.  i.  8,  11,  17,  and  ii.  8,  to  Isaiah  xli.  4, 
xliii.  11,  and  xliv.  6;  Jo.  xxi.  16, 17,  and  Rev.  ii.  23,  to  1st 
Kings  viii.  39,  Po.  vii.  9,  Jer.  xi.  20,  and  xvii.  20,  Rev.  xx. 
12,  to  Is.  xl.  10  ; — and,  to  crown  all,  Jesus  in  Rev.  i.  13, 
14,  15,  16,  17,  is  described  in  almost  the  same  words  as  is 
the  Supreme  God,  "  the  Ancient  of  Days,"  in  Daniel 
vii.  chapter,  and  were  there  not  other  proofs  in  abundance 
to  this  purpose,  this  resemblance  alone  would  decide  me. 

I  now  leave  it  to  the  cool  judgment  of  the  reader,  whether 
Jesus  prophecied  truly  ;  or  did,  or  did  not  teach  the  duty  of 
paying  religious  homage  to  other  Beings  besides  God  ?  and  if 
so,  it  is  consequent,  according  to  the  tests  by  Christians  ac- 
knowledged to  be  given  by  God  himself  in  Deuteronomy, 
that  Jesus  was  not  sent  by,  or  from  Him  ;  for  if  he  was — 

GOD'S  OWN   WORDS   WOULD  BE   CONTRADICTED   BY  GOD'S  OWN 
DEEDS. 


125 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

In  the  preceding  Chapters,  I  have  taken  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  I  found  it,  and  have  argued  upon  the  supposition 
that  Jesus  and  the  Apostles  really  said,  and  reasoned,  as 
has  been  stated.  I  shall  now  endeavour  to  show,  by  an  ex- 
amination of  the  authenticity  of  the  four  Gospels,  that  it  is 
not  certain,  that  they  were  really  guilty  of  such  mistakes  as 
are  related  of  them  in  those  Books. 

*  The  Life  and  Doctrines  of  Jesus  and  his  Followers, 
are  contained  in  the  pieces  composing  the  Volume  called 
the  New  Testament.  The  genuineness  of  the  Books,  L  e. 
whether  they  were  written  by  those  to  whom  they  are  as- 
cribed, must  be  judged  of,  from  the  external  testimony  con- 
cerning them,  and  from  internal  marks  in  the  books 
themselves.  For  the  miraculous  acts  therein,  and  therein 
only,  contained  and  related,  cannot  prove  the  truth  and  au- 
thenticity of  the  BOOKS,  because  the  authority  and  credibi- 
lity of  the  Books  themselves  must  be  firmly  established,  be- 
fore the  miracles  related  in  then!  can  reasonably  be  admitted 
as  real  facts. 

Now  the  external  evidence  in  favour  of  these  Books  is 
the  testimony  of  those  men  called  " the  Fathers"  And  as 
the  value  of  testimony  depends  upon  the  character  of  the 
witnesses,  it  would  be  proper  first  to  state  as  much  as  can 
be  learned  of  these  men.  As  time  will  not  permit  me  to 
adduce  all  that  might  be  said  upon  this  subject,  I  shall  here 

*  The  Reader  is  requested  by  the  Author  to  understand,  and  bear  in 
mind,  that  it  is  not  at  all  intended  by  any  of  the  observations  contained 
in  this  chapter  on  the  Histories  of  the  four  Evangelists,  to  reflect  upon, 
or  to  disparage  the  characters  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John, 
under  whose  names  they  go ;  because  he  believes,  and  thinks  it  is  proved 
in  this  Chapter,  that  the  real  authors  of  these  Histories  were  very  dif- 
ferent Persons  from  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  :  and  that  in  fact  the  accounts 
were  not  written  till  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  about  a  hundred 
years  after  the  supposed  authois  of  them  were  dead.  Of  course,  none 
of  the  observations  contained  in  the  chapter  relative  to  these  Histories, 
were  considered,  or  intended  to  apply  to  any  of  the  twelve  Apostles, 
who  were  not  men  who  could  make  such  mistakes  as  will  be  pointed 
out.  These  mistakes  belong  entirely  to  the  Authors  who  have  assumed 
their  names. 


126 

only  take  upon  me  to  assert,  that  they  were  most  credulous, 
superstitious,  and  weak  men,  and,  what  is  worse,  made  no 
scruple  of  telling  lies  to  support  and  favour  what  they 
called  "  the  cause  of  Truth."  For  they  were  writers  of 
Apocryphal  Books,  attributing  them  to  the  Apostles  ;  and 
moreover  great  miracle-mongers  who  vamped  up  stories  of 
prodigies  to  delude  their  followers  :  and  which  they  them- 
selves knew  to  be  false.  I  say  I  take  upon  me  to  assert 
this,  and  to  confirm,  and  establish  this  accusation,  I  refer 
the  Reader  to  Dr.  Middleton's  "  Free  Enquiry,"  a  learned 
Christian,  who  therefore  had  no  interest  to  misrepresent 
this  matter.  And  he  will  there  find  these  accusations 
amply  verified,  and  traits  of  character  proved  upon  them,  by 
no  means  favourable  to  the  credibility  of  their  testimony. 

The  first  of  these  Fathers  whose  testimony  is  usually  ad- 
dhced  to  prove  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels,  is  Papias, 
a  Disciple  of  John.  The  character  given  of  him  by  Euse- 
bius  is,  that  "  he  was  a  superstitious  and  credulous  man." 
And  this  is  easily  proved  by  recording  some  of  the  stories, 
concerning  Jesus  and  his  followers,  written  by  this  Papias 
in  a  Book  extant  in  the  time  of  Euscbius.  One  of  these 
stories  is  mentioned  by  Irenceus  who  says,  that  Papias  had 
it  from  John  ;  who,  according  to  Papias,  said,  that  Jesus 
said,  that — "  The  days  shall  come,  in  which  there  shall  be 
vines,  which  shall  severally  have  ten  thousand  branches  ; 
and  every  one  of  these  branches  shall  have  ten  thousand 
lesser  branches  ;  and  every  one  of  these  branches  shall  have 
ten  thousand  twigs  ;  and  every  one  of  these  twigs  shall  have 
ten  thousand  clusters  of  grapes  ;  and  every  one  of  these  grapes 
being  pressed  shall  yield  two  hundred  and  seventy-jive  gallons  of 
wine.  And  when  a  man  shall  take  hold  of  any  of  these  sa- 
cred bunches,  another  bunch  shall  cry  out  "  I  am  a  better 
bunch,  take  me,  and  bless  the  Lord  by  me  !"  There's  a 
Munchausen  for  you  Reader  !  Well  !  this  Papias  is  the  first 
witness  who  lived  after  Matthew,  who  has  spoken  of  his 
Gospel.  He  lived  about  the  year  116  after  Jesus.  And 
what  does  he  say  of  it  ?  Why  this.  "  Matthew  composed 
a  writing  of  the  Oracles  (meaning  without  doubt  the  Doc- 
trines of  the  Gospel,)  in  the  Hebrew  Language,  and  every 
one  interpreted  them  as  he  was  able."  So  far  as  this  Tes- 
timony goes,  it  is  positive  evidence,  that  the  only  Gospel  of 
Matthew  extant  in  116,  was  extant  in  Hebrew;  and  there 
was  then  no  translation  of  it,  for  "every  one  interpreted  as 
he  was  able."  The  present  Gospel  called  of  Matthew  was 


127 

then  not  written  by  him,  for  it  is  in  Greek.  And  that  it 
has  not  all  the  air  of  being  a  translation  is  asserted  by  most 
of  the  learned.  As  it  stands  then,  it  was  not  written  by 
Matthew  :  and  that  it  cannot  be  a  translation  of  Matthew's 
Hebrew,  is  not  only  plain  from  the  circumstance  of  its  style, 
and  other  marks  understood  by  Biblical  Critics,  but  can 
also  be  proved  by  another  story  related  by  this  same  Papias 
concerning  the  manner  of  the  death  of  Judas.  "  His  body, 
and  head  (  says  Papias)  became  so  swollen,  that  at  length 
he  could  not  get  through  a  street  in  Jerusalem,  where  two 
chariots  might  pass  abreast,  and  having  fallen  to  the  ground, 
he burst  asunder. 

Now  though  this  ridiculous  story  is  undoubtedly  false, 
yet  it  is  not  credible  that  Papias,  who  had  so  great  a  re- 
verence for  the  Apostles,  as  to  collect  and  gather  all  "  their 
sayings"  would  so  flatly  by  his  story  of  the  death  of  Judas 
contradict  the  story  of  Matthew,  if  the  Hebrew  Gospel  of 
Matthew  contained  that  part  of  the  Greek  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew which  relates  the  manner  of  Judas's  death. 

Justin  Martyr  lived  after  Papias,  in  the  middle  of  the  se- 
cond century  ?  and  though  he  relates  many  circumstances 
agreeing  in  the  main  with  those  recorded  in  the  Gospels, 
and  appears  to  quote  sayings  of  Jesus  from  some  book  or 
books  ;  yet  it  is  substantially  acknowledged  by  Dr.  Marsh, 
the  learned  annotator  on  Michaeli's  Introduction,  that  these 
quotations  are  so  unlike  the  words,  and  circumstances  in  the 
received  Evangelists  to  which  they  appear  to  correspond, 
that  one  of  two  things  must  be  true ;  either,  that  Justin, 
who  lived  140  years  after  Jesus,  had  never  seen  any  of  the 
present  Gospels ;  or  else,  that  they  icere  in  his  time  in  a  very 
different  state  from  what  they  now  are. 

The  next  Christian  Father  who  mentions  the  Gospel  of 
Matthew  is  Iren&us,  who  says  also  that  "Matthew  wrote 
his  Gospel  in  the  Hebrew  Language."  The  character  of 
Irenoeus  is  discoverable  from  his  Work  against  the  Herecies 
of  his  time,  to  that  I  refer  the  Reader,  who  willfind  him  to  have 
been  a  zealous,  though  a  very  credulous,  and  ignorant  man  ; 
for  he  believed  the  story  of  Papias  just  quoted,  and  many 
others  equally  absurd.  He  however  furnishes  this  impor- 
tant intelligence,  that  in  the  second  century,  the  Christian 
World  was  overrun  with  Heresy,' and  a  swarm  of  Apocryphal, 
and  spurious  Books  were  received  by  many  as  genuine. 


128 

The  next  witness  in  favour  of  the  Gospel  is  Tertuttian, 
who  lived  in  the  latter  end  of  the  second  century.  And 
the  soundness  of  his  Judgment,  and  his  capability  to  dis- 
tinguish the  genuine  Gospels  from  among  a  hundred  Apo- 
cryphal ones*  and  above  all  his  regard  for  truth,  may  be 
judged  of  from  these  proofs  given  by  himself.  He  asserts 
upon  his  own  knowledge,  "/  know  it,"  says  he — "that  the 
corpse  of  a  dead  Christian,  at  the  first  breath  of  the  prayer 
made  by  the  Priest,  on  occasion  of  its  own  funeral,  removed 
its  hands  from  its  sides,  into  the  usual  posture  of  a  suppli- 
cant :  and  when  the  service  was  ended,  restored  them 
again  to  their  former  situation"  (Tertul.  de  anima  c.  51.) 
And  he  relates  as  a  fact,  which  he,  and  all  the  orthodox  of 
his  time  credited,  that — ,< the  body  of  another  Chistian  al- 
ready interred  moved  itself  to  one  side  of  the  grave  to  make 
room  for  another  corpse  which  was  going  to  be  laid  by  it." 
And  it  is  on  the  testimony  of  such  men  as  these,  that  the 
Authenticity  of  the  Gospels  entirely  depends,  as  to  exter- 
nal evidence  !  for  these  are  all  the  witnesses  that  can  be 
produced  as  speaking  of  them,  who  lived  within  two  hun- 
dred years  after  Jesus  :  Three  men,  (for  Justin  cannot  be 
reckoned  as  a  witness  in  favour  of  the  Gospels,)  three 
men,  who  are  all  of  them  evidently  credulous,  and  two  of 
them  certainly  Liars. 

To  convince  a  thinking  man  that  Histories  recording 
such  very  extraordinary,  ill  supported,  improbable  facts  as 
are  contained  in  the  Gospels  are  divine,  or  even  really 
written  by  the  men  to  whom  they  are  ascribed  ;  and  not 
either  some  of  the  many  spurious  productions  with  which 
(as  we  learn  from  IrenoBus)  that  early  age  abounded,  cal- 
culated to  astonish  the  credulous,  and  superstitious,  or  else 
writings  of  authors  who  were  themselves  infected  witk  the 
grossest  superstitious  credulity  ;  of  what  use  can  it  be  to  ad- 
duce the  testimony  of  the  very  few  writers,  of  the  same,  or 
next  succeeding  age,  when  the  very  reading  of  their  works 
shews  him  that  they  themselves  were  tainted  with  that  same 
superstitious  credulity,  of  which  are  accused  the  real  authors 
of  the  New  Testament  ? 

It  is  an  obvious  rule  in  the  admission  of  evidence  in  any 
cause  whatsoever,  that  the  more  important  the  matter  to  be 
determined  by  it  is,  the  more  unsullied,  and  unexceptionable 
ougJtt  the  characters  of  the  witnesses  to  be.  And  when  no 
fipurt  of  Justice,  in  determining  a  question  of  fraud  to  the 


129 

amount  of  six  pence,  will  admit  the  testimony  of  witnesses 
who  are  themselves  notoriously  convicted  of  the  same  offence 
of  which  the  defendant  is  accused;  how  can  it  be  expected, 
that  any  reasonable,  unprejudiced  person,  should  admit 
similar  evidence  to  be  of  weight,  in  a  case  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance possible,  not  to  himself  only,  but  to  the  whole  hu- 
man race  ? 

But  there  is  a  still  greater  defect  in  the  testimony  of  those 
early  writers,  than  their  superstitious  credulity,  I  mean  their 
disregard  of  honour,  and  veracity,  in  whatever  concerned 
the  cause  of  their  particular  System. 

Though  Luke  asserts,  that  many  (even  before  he  wrote 
his  histories  for  the  use  of  Theophilus,)  had  written  upon 
the  same  subject :  (Who  of  course  must  have  been  of  the 
Jewish  nation,)  and  many  more  must  have  been  written  af- 
terwards, whose  writings  must  have  been  particularly  valua- 
ble ;  yet  so  singularly  industrious  have  the  Fathers,  and 
succeeding  sons  of  the  Orthodox  Church  been,  in  destroy- 
ing every  writing  upon  the  subject  of  Christianity,  which 
they  could  not  by  some  means,  or  other,  apply  to  the  sup- 
port of  their  own  blasphemous  superstition,  that  no  work 
of  importance  of  any  Christian  writer,  within  the  three  first 
centuries,  hath  been  permitted  to  come  down  to  us,  except 
those  books  which  they  have  thought  fit  to  adopt,  and  trans- 
mit to  us  as  the  Canon  of  Apostolic  Scripture  ;  and  the  works 
of  a  few  other  writers,  who  were  all  of  them,  not  only  converts 
from  Paganism,  but  men  who  had  been  educated  and  well 
instructed  in  the  Philosophic  Schools  of  the  latter  Plato- 
nists,  and  Pythagoreans. 

The  established  maxim  of  these  Schools  was,  that  it  was 
not  lawful  only  but  commendable  to  deceive,  and  assert  false- 
hoods for  the  sake  of  promoting  what  they  considered  as 
the  cause  of  Truth  and  Piety,  and  the  effects  of  this  maxim, 
which  was  fully  acted  upon  by  both  orthodox  Christians, 
and  Here  ticks,  produced  a  multiplicity  of  false,  and  spuri- 
ous writings,  wherewith  the  second  century  abounded. 

Nay,  they  did  not  spare  from  the  operation  of  this  maxim, 
the  Scriptures  themselves.  For  they  stuffed  their  copies  of 
the  Septuagint  with  a  number  of  interpolated  pretended  pro- 
phecies concerning  Jesus,  and  his  death  upon  the  cross ; — 
forgeries  as  weak,  and  contemptible,  and  clumsy  in  them- 


130 

selves,  as  they  were  impious,  and  wicked.  Whoever  de- 
sires to  see  a  number  of  them,  may  find  them  in  the  Dis- 
pute, or  Dialogue  of  Justin  with  Trypho  the  Jew  !  where 
he  will  see  the  simple  Justin  bringing  them  out  passage 
after  passage  against  the  stubborn  Israelite,  who  contents 
himself  with  coolly  answering,  that  these  marvellous  pro- 
phecies were  not  to  be  found  in  his  Hebrew  Bible  ! 

There  is  also  another  well  known,  incontrovertible  proof 
of  the  deceit  and  falsehood  of  the  leading  Christians  of 
early  times,  of  which  every  person  in  the  least  conversant 
with  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  those  times  must  be  con- 
vinced— their  pretended  power  of  working  miracles  !  On 
this  subject  I  shall  say  nothing,  but  refer  the  Reader  to  the 
work  of  Dr.  Middleton  already  mentioned,  for  an  ample  ac- 
count of  their  lying  wonders,  which  they  imposed  as  mira- 
culous upon  the  simple  people. 

With  regard  to  the  internal  evidence  for  the  authenticity 
of  the  writings  composing  the  New  Testament,  it  is  still  less 
satisfactory  than  the  external  evidence. — And  this  may  be 
well  believed,  when  the  Reader  is  informed  that  the  Great 
Semler,  after  spending  his  life  in  the  study  of  Ecclesiastical 
History,  and  antiquities,  which  he  is  allowed  to  have  under- 
stood better  than  any  before  him,  affirmed  to  his  astonished 
Coreligionists,  that,  except  the  Gospel  of  John,  and  the 
Apocalypse,  the  whole  New  Testament  was  a  collec- 
tion of  forgeries  written  by  the  Partizans  of  the  Jewish,  and 
Gentile  parties  in  the  Christian  Church,  and  entitled  Apos- 
tolic, in  order  the  better  to  answer  their  purpose.  This 
opinion  has  been  in  part  adopted  in  England,  by  a  learned 
and  shrewd  Clergyman  named  Evanson,  who  has  almost  de- 
monstrated, that  the  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  written 
in  the  second  century  after  the  birth  of  Jesus,  by  a  Geniile. 
For  he  proves  that  it  could  not  have  been  written  by  a  Jew, 
on  account  of  Geographical  mistakes,  and  manifest  igno- 
rance of  Jewish  customs. — He  also  gives  good  reasons  for 
rejecting  the  authenticity  of  some  of  the  Epistles.  In  short 
he  has  poured  such  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  eyes  of  his 
terrified  Brethren,  as  will  ere  long  no  doubt  enable  them 
to  see  a  little  clearer  than  heretofore. 

He  gives  several  instances  of  Geographical  blunders  in 
Matthew.  I  shall  mention  only  one-  Matthew  says  in  the 
2d  chapter  that  when  Joseph  the  husband  of  Mary  returned 


131 

from  Egypt,  "  hearing  that  Archekus  reigned  in  Judea,  he 
was  afraid  to  go  thither,  and  therefore  turned  aside,  into 
the  Parts  of  Galilee."  Now  this,  as  will  appear  from  a 
map  of  Palestine,  is  just  like  saying,  "  a  man  at  Philadel- 
phia, intending  to  go  to  the  State  of  New-  York,  on  his 
route  heard  something  which  made  him  afraid  to  go  thither, 
and  therefore  he  turned  aside — into  Boston  !" 

That  the  author  of  that  Gospel  was  ignorant  of  Jewish 
customs  will  be  evident  from  the  following  circumstances. 
He  says  Jesus  told  Peter,  that  before  the  cock  creio  he  would 
deny  him  thrice  ;  and  that  afterwards,  when  Peter  was 
cursing  and  swearing,  saying  "  I  know  not  the  man  !  im- 
mediately the  cock  crew."  Now  it  is  unfortunate  for  the 
credit  of  this  story,  that  it  is  well  known,  that  in  conformity 
with  Jewish  customs,  at  that  time  subsisting,  no  cocks  were 
allowed  to  be  in  Jerusalem,  where  Jesus  was  apprehended. 
This  is  known,  and  acknowledged  by  learned  Christians  ; 
who  have  extricated  themselves  from  this  difficulty  by 
proving,  that  the  crowing  of  the  cock  here  mentioned  does 
not  mean,  as  it  appears  to  mean,  absolutely  the  crowing  of  a 
cock,  but  that  it  means — what  dost  thou  think  reader? 
why  it  means — the  sound  of  a  trumpet  !  /* 


*  That  the  pretended  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  not  written  by  Mat- 
thew,  or  by  an  inhabitant  of  Palestine,  may  be  also  inferred,  I  think, 
from  the  blundering  attempts  of  the  author  of  it  to  give  the  meaning  of 
some  expressions  uttered  by  Jesus,  and  used  by  the  Jews,  in  the  Ian* 
guage  of  the  country,  which  was  the  Syro  Chaldaic  ;  and  which  the 
real  Matthew  could  hardly  be  ignorant  of.  For  instance,  he  says,  that 
Golgotha  signifies — "  the  place  of  a  skull,"  Mat-  xxvii.  33.  Now  this 
is  not  true  for  Golgotha,  or  as  it  should  have  been  written,  Golgoltha, 
does  not  signify  "  the  place  of  a  skull,"  but  simply  "  a  skull."  The 
Gospels  according  to  Mark,  and  John,  are  guilty  of  the  same  mistake, 
and  thus  betray  the  same  marks  of  Gentilism.  Again,  the  pretended 
Matthew  says,  that  Jesus  cried  on  the  cross,  "Eli  Eli  lama,  saback- 
thani,"  which  he  says  meant,  "  My  God,  My  God,  why  hast  thou  for- 
saken me?"  (Mat.  xxvii.  46.)  If  the  reader  will  look  at  what  Michaelis, 
in  his  introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  says  upon  this  subject,  he  will 
find  the  real  Syio  Chaldaic  expression  which  must  have  been  used  by 
Jesus,  to  be  so  different  from  the  one  given  by  the  supposed  Matthew, 
that  he  will,  (and  the  observation  is  not  meant  as  a  disparagement  to 
the  real  Matthew,  who  certainly  had  no  hand  in  the  composition  of  the 
Gospel  covered  with  his  name)  I  suspect  be  inclined  to  believe,  that 
this  pretended  Matthew's  knowledge  of  the  vulgar  language  of  the 
Jews  used  in  Christ's  time,  must  have  been  about  upon  a  par  with  the 
honest  sailor's  knowledge  of  French ;  who  assured  his  countryman, 
on  his  return  home,  that  the  French  called  a  horse  a  shovel,  and  a  hat 
a  chopper ! 


132 

According  to  Luke,  as  soon  as  Jesus  was  dead,  Joseph  of 
Arimathea  went  to  Pilate,  and  begged  his  body ;  and  hasted 
to  bury  it,  because  the  Sabbath  (which  began  at  sunset,) 
drew  on  ;  that  his  female  disciples  attended  the  burial ;  ob- 
served how  the  body  was  placed  in  the  Sepulchre,  and  re- 
turned, and  prepared  spices,  and  ointments  to  embalm  it 
with,  before  the  Sabbath  commenced  ?  and  then  rested  the 
Sabbath  day,  according  to  the  commandment. 

The  pretended  Matthew,  however,  tells  us,  that  "  whert 
the  even  was  come"  i.  e.  when  the  Sabbath  day  was  actually 
begun,  Joseph  went  to  beg  the  body ;  took  it  down,  wrapped 
it  in  linen,  and  buried  it ;  and  that  Mary  Magdalene,  and 
the  other  Mary  were  sitting  over  against  the  Sepulchre — 
From  the  time  that  this  writer  has  thought  fit  to  allot  for 
the  burial  of  Jesus,  ij  is  evident,  that  he  was  not  only  no 
Jew,  but  so  ignorant  of  the  customs  of  the  Jews,  that  he  did 
not  know,  that  their  day  always  began  with  the  evening ;  or 
he  would  never  have  employed  Joseph  in  doing  what  no 
Jew  would,  nor  dared  to  have  done  after  the  commencement 
of  the  Sabbath.  He  takes  no  notice  at  all  of  the  prepara- 
tion made  by  the  women,  mentioned  by  Luke  ;  for  that 
would  not  have  agreed  with  the  sequel  of  his  story.  But 
to  make  up  for  that  omission,  he  informs  us  of  a  circum- 
stance not  mentioned  at  all  by  the  other  Evangelists.  For  he 
tells  us  that  "  on  the  next  day  which  followeth  the  day  of 
preparation,  the  Chief  Priests,  and  Pharisees  came  together 
unto  Pilate,  &c."  "  The  next  day  which  followeth  the  day 
of  preparation  !  !" — such  is  the  periphrasis  that  he  uses 
for  the  Sabbah  day.  It  is  well  known  that  among  the  Jews 
it  was,  and  is  customary  to  prepare,  and  set  out,  in  the  af- 
ternoon of  the  Friday  ,  all  the  food,  and  necessaries  for 
every  family  during  the  Sabbath  day.  Because  they  were 
forbidden  to  light  a  fire,  or  do  any  servile  work  on  that  day ; 
and  therefore  Friday  was  very  properly  called  "  the  day  of 
preparation."  But  it  appears  to  me  next  to  impossible  that 
any  Jew  would  call  the  Sabbath  "  the  day  that  followeth  the 
day  of  the  preparation"  Yet  this  singular  Historian  so  de- 
nominates it,  and  moreover  goes  on  to  inform  us,  that  the 
Chief  Priests,  and  Pharisees  went  to  Pilate,  to  ask  for  a 
guard  to  place  round  the  Sepulchre  till  the  third  day,  to 
prevent  his  Disciples  from  stealing  away  his  body,  and  then 
saying,  that  he  was  risen  from  the  dead ;  and  that  after  ob- 
taining the  Governor's  permission,  "  they  went,,  and  secured 
the  Sepulchre  by  sealing  the  stone  that  was  rolled  against  it, 


138 

and  setting  a  watch."  Though  there  appear  nothing  very 
strange  in  this  account  to  a  Christian,  yet  I  assure  my  read- 
er that  to  the  Jews,  it  ever  did,  and  must  appear,  utterly 
incredible.  For  it  is  wonderful!  that  the  Jewish  Rulers  and 
the  rigorous  Pharisees  should,  in  so  public  a  manner,  thus  vio- 
late the  precept  for  observing  the  Sabbath  day  ;  for  the 
penalty  of  this  action  of  theirs  was  no  less  than  death  I 
More  wonderful  still  is  it  that  they  should  have  so  much 
better  attended  to,  and  comprehended  the  meaning  of  the 
prediction  of  Jesus  to  his  disciples,  than  his  own  disciples 
did ;  and  most  wonderful  of  all,  that  a  Roman  Proconsul 
should  consent  to  let  his  troops  keep  watch  round  a  tomb, 
for  fear  it  should  be  thought  that  a  dead  man  was  come  to 
life  again. 

But  though  our  author's  history  of  these  extraordinary 
facts  is  neither  consistent  with  reason  and  probability,  nor 
with  the  other  histories  of  the  same  event ;  it  proceeds  in 
pretty  strict  conformity  to  the  manner  in  which  it  sets  out. 
For  to  convince  us  still  more  fully  that  the  author  was  to- 
tally ignorant  of  the  mode  of  computing  time  in  use  among 
the  Jews,  and  habituated  to  that  in  use  among  the  Greeks, 
and  Romans  ;  he  reckons  the  Sabbath  to  last  till  day  light 
on  Sunday  morn,  and  says,  chapter  xxviii.  "that  in  the 
end  of  the  Sabbath,  as  it  began  to  dawn,  towards  the  first 
day  of  the  week," — the  two  Marys  before  mentioned  came, 
(not  as  in  Luke,  to  embalm  the  body,  for  with  a  guard 
round  the  sepulchre,  that  would  have  been  impracticable, 
but)  to  see  the  sepulchre.  Whilst  they  were  there,  the  author 
tells  us,  there  was  another  great  earthquake,  and  an 
Angel  descended,  rolled  away  the  stone,  and  sat  upon  it, 
at  whose  sight  the  soldiers  trembled,  and  were  frighted  to 
death.  But  to  prevent  the  like  effect  of  his  appearance 
upon  the  women,  he  said  unto  them,  fear  not  ye,  for  I  know- 
that  ye  seek  Jesus  who  was  crucified.  That  the  women  as 
well  as  the  soldiers  were  present  at  the  descent  of  this  An- 
gel, appears  not  only  from  there  being  nobody  else,  by 
whom  these  uncommon  circumstances  could  have  been  re- 
lated, but  also  by  the  pronoun  personal  ye  inserted  in  the 
original  Greek,  which  in  that  language  is  never  done,  un- 
less it  be  emphatically  to  mark  such  a  distinction,  or  anti- 
thesis, as  there  was  on  this  occasion  between  them,  and  the 
Roman  Guard.  Here,  however,  the  author  is  inadvertently 
inconsistent  with*  himself,  as  well  as  with  the  other  Evange- 
lists ;  and  forgetting,  that  the  sole  intent  of  rolling  away 
T 


134 

the  stone,  was  to  open  a  passage,  absolutely  necessary  to 
the  body  of  Jesus  to  come  firth  out  of  the  sepulchre  ;  and 
that  if  he  had  risen,  and  come  forth  after  the  Angel  had 
rolled  it  away,  both  the  women,  and  the  soldiers  must  have  seen 
him  rise,  he  makes  the  Angel  bid  them  look  into  the  sepul- 
chre, to  see — that  he  was  not  there  I  and  tell  them  that  he 
was  already  risen  ;  and  that  he  was  gone  before  them  into 
Galilee,  where  they  should  see  him  !  !  In  their  way,  the 
author  adds,  Jesus  himself  met  the  women,  and  said  •'  be 
not  afraid,  go  tell  my  Brethren  to  go  into  Galilee,  and  there 
Shall  they  see  me  :  He  says  that  the  eleven  Apostles  went 
into  Galilee  to  an  appointed  mountain,  and  saw  him  there : 
notwithstanding  that  some  of  them  were  so  incredulous,  as 
not  to  believe  even  the  testimony  of  their  own  senses. 

In  the  interim,  whilst  the  women  were  going  to  the 
Apostles,  the  author  tells  us,  "  some  of  the  watch,"  some 
strictly  disciplined  Roman  soldiers,  left  their  station,  to 
bring  an  account  of  what  had  passed,  not  to  the  Governor 
their  General,  nor  to  any  other  of  their  own  Officers— but  to 
the  Chief  Priests  of  the  Jews  !  that  they  assembled  a  coun- 
cil of  the  elders  upon  the  occasion,  and  after  deliberating 
what  was  to  be  done,  induced  the  soldiers,  by  large  bribes, 
to  run  the  risk  of  being  put  to  death  themselves,  upon  the 
highly  improbable  chance  of  the  Jewish  rulers  having  in- 
fluence sufficient  with  the  Roman  Proconsul,  to  prevail  on 
him  to  submit  to  the  indelible  infamy  of  neglecting  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  army  under  his  command,  to  such  a  degree, 
as  to  suffer  an  entire  guard  of  soldiers  avowedly  to  sleep 
upon  their  station,  without  any  notice  being  taken  of  it  ! 
and  to  say  "  his  disciples  came,  and  stole  him  away  whilst 
we  slept."  This  incredible  story  is  another  instance  how 
necessary  it  is,  that  those  who  do  not  adhere  closely  to  the 
truth,  should  have  extraordinary  good  memories,  to  enable 
them  to  keep  clear  of  absurdities,  or  palpable  contradic- 
tions, in  their  narrations,  For  consider  the  circumstances. 
How  were  the  tongues  of  these  soldiers  to  be  restrained 
among  the  inquisitive  inhabitants  of  a  large  city,  (at  that 
time  too,  greatly  crowded  on  account  of  the  Paschal  feast,) 
not  only  in  their  way  to  the  Chief  Priests  ;  but  also  during 
the  whole  time  while  the  Priests  assembled  the  Sanhedrim, 
and  were  deliberating  what  was  to  be  done  ?  And  if  that 
part  of  the  watch,  who  the  author  says  came  to  inform  the 
Chief  Priests,  were  poltroons  enough  for  the  sake  of  a  bribe 
to  undergo  so  shameful  a  disgrace  to  themselves,  as  well  as 


135 

to  hazard  the  resentment  of  their  General,  how  could  tkey 
undertake  that  all  their  comrades  who  remained  at  the  Se- 
pulchre would  do  the  same  ?  and  to  what  purpose  could  the 
Jewish  council  bribe  some.,  without  a  possibility  of  knowing 
how  the  rest  of  the  corps  would  act  ?  And  even  supposing 
all  these  difficulties  surmounted,  and  that  the  whole  guard 
had  agreed,  and  persisted  in  saying,  "  his  disciples  stole  him 
away  while  we  slept,"  of  what  service  could  that  be  to  the 
Jewish  rulers  ?  for  if  the  guards  were  asleep,  they  could  be 
no  evidence  to  prove  that  the  body  was  taken  away  ;  and 
it  might  be  just  as  probable  that  he  might  rise  to  life  again 
while  the  watch  was  asleep,  as  it  was  if  no  watch  had  been 
set 

In  a  word,  it  appears  from  the  numbers  of  Latin  words 
in  Greek  characters,  which  this  Book  contains  ;  from  the 
numerous  Geographical  blunders  ;  and  the  author's  evident 
ignorance  of  the  customs  of  the  Jews :  from  the  form  of  Bap- 
tism enjoined  at  the  conclusion,  which  was  not  in  use  in  the 
first  century  as  appears  from  the  form  mentioned  as  then  used 
in  the  Acts  :  from  the  Roman  Centurion's  being  made  to 
call  Jesus  "  a  Son  of  a  God"  which  words  in  the  mouth  of 
a  Pagan  could  only  mean  that  he  must  be  a  Demi-god,  like 
Bacchus,  Hercules,  or  Esculapius  :  it  is  clear  that  this 
Gospel  is  the  patched  work  composition  of  some  convert 
from  the  Pagan  schools.  At  any  rate  his  Gospel  flatly 
contradicts  the  others  in  several  important  particulars  in 
the  History  of  the  Resurrection.  For  he  represents  the 
Apostles  as  being  commanded  by  the  Angel,  and  by  Jesus 
to  go  to  Galilee,  in  order  to  see  him  ;  and  that  they  went 
there,  and  saw  him  on  a  mountain.  Yet  it  is  said  by  the 
other  Evangelists,  see  Luke  chapter  24,  and  Acts  1,  that  he 
appeared  on  the  same  day  of  the  resurrection  to  Peter,  at 
Jerusalem  ;  to  two  other  Disciples  as  they  went  to  Emmaus ; 
and  on  the  succeeding  night  to  the  whole  congregation  of 
the  Disciples,  not  in  Galilee,  but  in  Jerusalem,  and  that  by 
his  express  command  the  Apostles  did  not  go  into  Galilee, 
but  remained  at  Jerusalem  till  the  feast  of  Pentecost. 

But  as  this  Author  differs  from  the  other  Evangelists,  so 
they  also  differ  among  themselves.  And  the  latter  part  of 
the  last  chapter  of  Mark  is  so  irreconcilable  to  the  other 
Historians  of  the  Resurrection,  that  in  many  Manuscripts 
it  is  found  omitted.  And  that  Gospel  ends  in  them,  at  the 
eighth  verse  of  the  last  chapter.  And  Mr.  West,  in  his  at- 


136 

tempted  reconciliation  of  their  accounts  of  the  Resurrection, 
is  obliged  to  make  a  number  of  postulates,  to  take  a  number 
of  things  for  granted,  which  might  be  denied;  and  after 
elaborately  arranging  the  stage  for  'the  performance,  he  sets 
the  women,  and  the  Disciples  a  driving  backwards,  and  for- 
wards, from  the  City  to  the  Sepulchre,  and  from  the  Sepul- 
chre to  the  City,  and  so  agitated,  that  they  forget  to  know 
each  other  when  they  cross  in  their  journeys.  Notwith- 
standing his  great  ingenuity  in  reconciling  contradictions, 
iu  which  he  beats  Surenhusius  himself,  he  makes  but  a  sor- 
ry piece  of  work  of  it  after  all.  He  had  much  better  have 
let  it  alone;  for  his  work  upon  the  Resurrection  which  he 
calls  "  the  main  fact  of  Christianity"  displays  these  contra- 
dictions in  so  glaring  a  light,  that  the  very  laboured  ingenuity 
of  his  methods  of  reconciliation,  inevitably  suggests  "  con- 
firmation strong''  to  the  keen-eyed  reader,  of  'that  irrecon- 
cilability which  the  author  endeavors  to  refute.  What 
rational  man  therefore  can  reasonably  be  required  to  believe 
the  story  of  resurrection  pretended  to  have  be«n  seen  and 
known,  only  by  the  party  interested  in  making  it  believed! 
when  in  their  Testimony  even,  they  do  not  agree,  but  con- 
tradict each  other  ? 

There  is  really  an  immense  number  of  discrepencies,  and 
contradictions  in  the  New  Testament  which  the  acumen  of 
learned  Christians  has  of  late  discovered,  and  pointed  out 
to  the  world.  And  Mr.  Evanson,  in  his  work  on  "  the  Dis- 
sonance of  the  four  Evangelists,"  has  collected  a  mass, 
enough  I  should  think,  to  terrify  the  most  determined  Re- 
conciliator  that  ever  lived.  It  is  a  little  remarkable,  that 
Mr.  Evanson  has  asserted  and  proved  the  spuriousness  of 
the  Gospel  ascribed  to  John,  which  Semler  spared,  in  the 
general  wreck  which  he  made  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
other  Books  of  the  New  Testament.  Mr.  Evanson  says,  in  his 
examination  of  it,  what  has  been  said  before,  that  the  speeches 
ascribed  to  Jesus  in  it  are  most  incoherent,  contradictory,  and 
falsified  by  well-known  facts.  And  indeed  fhe  Author  of 
the  Book  itself  seems  to  be  sensible  of  this ;  for  he  very 
naturally  represents  the  Jews  repeatedly  accusing  Jesus  of 
being  mad.  "  He  hath  a  devil,  and  is  mad,  (say  they  to  the 
multitude)  why  hear  ye  him  ?"  and  so  in  other  places. — 
Mr.  Evanson  considers  this  work  as  the  composition  of  a 
converted  Platonist,  or  of  a  Platonizing  Jew,  the  latter 
we  think  to  be  the  most  correct  opinion,  since  it  is  evident 
that  the  autlipr  of  that  Gospel  had  the  works  of  Philo  at 


137 

his  fingers'  ends,  which  is  more  than  can  be  supposed  of 
John.  As  Semler  excepted  the  Gospel  of  John  only,  so 
Mr.  Evanson  excepts  the  Gospel  of  Luke  only  from  the 
charge  of  spuriousness :  though  he  says  that  it  is  grossly 
corrupted  and  interpolated.  From  these  corruptions,  and 
interpolations,  he  endeavours  to  purify  it ;  in  which  attempt 
we  think  he  has  had  very  indifferent  success.  In  short,  his 
work  has  proved,  (what  he  did  not  himself  contemplate) 
that  the  Providence  of  the  God  of  Truth  has  taken  care, 
that  so  many  absurdities,  and  contradictions  should  be  con- 
tained in  these  Books  of  the  New  Testament  which  were 
written  to  establish  a  mistake,  as  must,  I  conceive,  satisfy 
any  man  who  has  them  once  pointed  out  to  him,  that  the 
Doctrine  of  those  Books  is  not,  and  cannot  be  from  God. 

But  it  may  be  still  asked,  "  How  did  this  notion  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  become  current  ?"  "  How  can  you 
account  for  the  Apostles'  believing  such  a  thing  ?"  We 
answer  sincerely — we  cannot  absolutely  ascertain.  The 
Jews  of  that  age  have  left  no  Documents  upon  this  business. 
The  origin  of  the  Christian  Religion  is  so  extremely  obscure, 
that  Josephus  takes  no  notice  of  it  at  all,  (for  the  passages 
relating  to  Christian  affairs  now  found  in  Josephus  are  noto- 
rious interpolations.)  And  it  is  evident  from  the  Chrono- 
logical, and  other  mistakes  about  Jesus  in  the  Talmud,  that 
the  curiosity  df  the  learned  Jews  had  never  been  interested 
by  Christianity,  till  so  long  after  Jesus,  that  the  memory  of 
him,  and  his,  was  almost  entirely  lost  among  that  nation. 
And  it  appears  from  the  last  chapter  of  the  Acts,  that 
when  Paul  was  received  by  the  Jews  at  Rome  he  had  not 
been  considered  by  the  Jews  of  Jerusalem  as  of  sufficient 
importance,  as  to  cause  them  to  warn  their  Brethren  of  the 
dispersion  concerning  him  ;  for  these  Jews  tell  Paul,  on 
his  enquiring,  that  they  had  not  received  any  letters 
concerning  him  from  Jerusalem.  So  that  we  can  offer 
nothing  but  conjecture,  to  solve  the  difficulty. 

It  has  been  said  by  some,  (and  it  is  by  no  means  an 
Hypothesis  destitute  of  plausibility,)  that  Jesus  was  indeed 
crucified,  but  did  not  actually  die  on  the  cross.  It  is  evident 
that  Pilate  was  extremely  desirous  to  save  his  Life  ;  and  is  it 
impossible  that  the  Roman  Soldiers  who  crucified  him,  had 
secret  orders  ?  Consider  the  circumstances.  He  was  crucified 
at  our  nine  in  the  morning,  and  was  taken  from  the  cross  at 
about  three  in  the  afternoon.  Now  crucifixion  is  not  a 


138 

death  which  kills  men  in  six  hours,  and  men  have  been 
known  to  have  lived  fastened  to  the  cross  for  more  than 
two  days.  Consider  besides,  that  when  the  Soldiers  gave 
the  coup  de  grace  to  the  two  robbers,  that  they  did  not  break 
the  legs  of  Jesus.  This,  the  author  of  the  Gospel  according 
to  John  says  they  did,  in  order  to  fulfill  a  prophecy,  but  I 
leave  it  to  my  reader  whether  it  is  not  more  likely  that  they 
did  so  in  order  to  fulfil  secret  orders  ?  But  to  make  up  for 
that  omission,  the  author  adds,  that  they  pierced  Jesus 
with  a  spear.  Now  besides-  that  this  is  not  mentioned  by 
the  other  Evangelists,  the  very  manner  in  which  this  circum- 
stance is  mentioned,  and  eagerly  affirmed  by  him  looks  as 
if  the  Author  was  aware  of  the  likelihood  of  a  suspicion  of 
the  fact  we  are  trying  to  prove  probable,  and  that  he  wrote 
this  in  order  to  obviate  it.  And  after  all,  the  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  John  was  certainly  not  written  by  him,  and  therefore 
what  the  Author  of  it  observes  may  be  true,  or  not.  You 
will  observe  also  reader,  that  the  body  of  Jesus  was  given 
by  Pilate  to  his  friends  immediately,  a  favour  never  vouch- 
safed by  the  Romans  in  such  a  case,  except  "speciali  gra- 
tia" You  will  observe  also,  that  the  body  was  taken 
down  by  his  friends,  no  doubt  with  great  care,  probably 
was  washed  from  the  blood,  and  rubbed  perfectly  dry,  and 
was  deposited  in  the  cave  or  sepulchre  with  a  large  quan- 
tity of  spices,  and  aromatics. — Now  suppose  that  Jesus  had 
only  swooned  on  the  cross,  and  that  his  naked  body  after 
being  cleansed  as  aforesaid,  was  laid  in  the  new  Sepulchre 
where  the  air  was  cool  and  fresh,  wrapped  in  a  considera- 
ble quantity  of  dry  linen,  together  with  many  spices,  and 
aromatics,  what  could  be  more  opportune,  or  proper  to  sti- 
mulate his  drowsed  senses,  and  recall  the  unfortunate  suf- 
ferer to  life  ?  Suppose  then,  that  on  awaking  from  his 
trance,  he  disengaged  himself,  and  took  himself  away  as 
secretly  as  possible.  Might  not  all  this  have  happened  ? 
Is  it  impossible  ?  And  does  it  not  look  plausible  ?  It  is 
not  improbable  that  he  might  after  this  have  shewed  him- 
self privately  to  his  particular  Disciples  ;  for  you  will  re- 
collect Reader,  that  the  appearances  of  Jesus  to  his  Disciples 
after  his  crucifixion  were  to  them  only,  and  for  the  most 
part  in  the  night.  And  thus  it  is  by  no  means  impossible, 
that  the  twelve  Apostles,  who  were,  I  doubt  not,  well  mean- 
ing men,  though  extremely  simple,  and  credulous ;  I  say  it 
is  thus  by  no  means  impossible,  that  they  might  have  be- 
lieved sincerely,  that  their  master  had  risen  from  the  Dead. 
This  Hypothesis  must  not  be  considered  only  as  the  brain 


139 

work  of  an  unbelieving  Sceptic  ;  for  it  has  been  (in  its  main 
principle)  advanced,  and  elaborately  defended  by  Dr.  Paulus 
the  professor  of  divinity  in  the  principal  University  in  Bavaria, 

It  is  true,  that  it  may  be  said,  that  this  is  all  Hypothesis, 
and  mere  conjecture.  We  allow  it ;  it  is  true ;  and  we  as- 
sert, that  the  account  given  by  the  Evangelists  is  no  better, 
nay,  worse  than  conjecture,  as  it  is  a  mere  forgery  of  the  se- 
cond century  !  For  no  man,  we  think  who  knows  all  that 
has  been  made  known  by  Biblical  Critics  in  later  years, 
will  now  seriously  contend  for  the  literal  Truth  of  that  ac- 
count* 


*  As  reasons  for  this  assertion,  take  the  following  facts,  which  are 
now  ascertained,  and  can  he  proved  : — 1.  Several  sects  of  Christians 
in  the  first  century,  in  the  apostolic  sera,  denied  that  Jesus  was  cruci- 
fied :  as  the  Basildeans,  &c.  The  author  of  the  Epistle  escribed  to 
Barnabas,  I  think,  denied  it,  and  the  author  of  the  gospel  of  Thomas 
certainly  did.  2.  The  Jewish  Christians,  the  disciples  of  the  twelve 
Apostles,  never  received,  but  rejected  every  individual  book  of  the  present 
New  Testament.  They  held  in  especial  abomination  the  writings  of 
Paul,  whom  they  called  "  an  apostate,"  and  there  is  extant  iu  "  Co- 
telerius*  Patres  Jlpostolici"  a  letter  ascribed  to  Peter,  written  to  James 
at  Jerusalem,  wherein  he  complains  bitterly  of  Paul,  styling  him  "  a 
lawless  man"  and  a  crafty  misrepresenter  of  him  (Peter,)  and  his  doc- 
tiine,  in  that  Paul  represented  every  where,  Peter  as  being  secretly  of 
the  same  opinions  with  himself ;  against  this  he  enters  his  protest,  and 
declares,  that  he  reprobates  the  doctrine  of  Paul.  (See  Appendix,  A.) 
3.  It  is  certain,  that  from  the  beginning,  the  Chiistians  were  never 
agreed  as  to  points  of  faith  ;  and  that  the  Apostles  themselves,  so  far 
from  being  considered  as  inspired  and  infallible,  were  frequently  con- 
tradicted, thwarted,  and  set  at  nought  by  their  own  converts  :  and  there 
were  as  many  sects,  heresies,  and  quarrels,  in  theirs/  century,  as 
in  the  second  or  third.  4.  Christ  and  his  Apostles  were  no  sooner 
off  the  stage,  than  forgeries  of  all  kinds  broke  in  with  irresistible 
force  ;  Gospels,  Epistles,  Acts,  Revelations  without  number,  pub- 
lished in  the  names,  and  under  the  feigned  authority  of  Jesus  and 
his  Apostles,  abounded  in  the  Christian  church  ;  and  as  some  of  these 
were  as  early  in  time  as  any  of  the  writings  in  the  present  canon  of  the 
New  Testament,  so  they  were  received  promiscuously  with  them,  and 
held  in  equal  credit,  and  veneiation,  and  read  in  the  public  assemblies 
as  of  equal  authority  with  those  now  received,  5.  The  very  learned 
and  pious  Dodwell,  in  his  Dissertations  on  Irenaeus,  avows,  that  he  can- 
not find  in  Ecclesiastical  Antiquities,  (which  he  understood  better  than 
any  man  of  his  age,)  any  evidence  at  all,  that  the  four  Gospels  were 
Known,  or  heard  of  before  the  time  of  TVo/an,  and  Adrian,  i.  e.  before 
the  middle  of  the  second  century,  i.  e.  nearly  a  hundred  years  after 
the  Apostles  were  dead.  (See  Appendix  B.)  Long  before  this  time 
we  know,  that  there  were  extant  numbers  of  spurious  gospels  forged, 
and  ascribed  to  the  Apostles  ;  and  we  have  not  the  least  evidence  to  be 
depended  on,  that  those  now  received  were  not  also  apocryphal.  For 
ihey  were  written  noboby  certainly  knows  by  whom,  or  where,  or  when. 


140 

If  all  this  will  not  satisfy  the  man  that  "  believeth  all 
things,"  our  last  resource  is  to  deny  the  fact  of  this  resurrec- 
tion. And  this  we  can  do  with  perfect  sang  froid,  as  we 
know  very  well  that  it  cannot  be  proved  ;  for  the  only  testi- 

They  first  appeared  in  an  age  of  credulity,  when  forgeries  of  this  kind 
abounded,  and  were  received  with  avidity  by  those  whose  opinions  they 
favoured,  while  they  were  rejected  as  spurious  by  many  sects  of  Chris- 
tians, who  asserted  that  they  were  possessed  of  the  genuine  gospels, 
which,  however,  those  who  received  "  the  four,"  denied.  6.  A11  the 
different  sects  of  Christians,  without  a  known  exception,  altered,  inter- 
polated, and  without  scruple  garbled  their  different  copies  of  their  va- 
rious and  discordant  gospels,  in  order  to  adapt  them  to  their  janing, 
and  whimsical  philosophical  notions.  Celsus  accuses  them  of  this,  and 
they  accuse  each  other.  And  that  they  were  continually  tampering 
with  their  copies  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  is  evident  from 
the  immense  number  of  various  readings  ;  and  from  some  whole 
phrases,  and  even  verses,  which  for  knavish  purposes  were  foisted  into 
the  text,  but  have  been  detected,  and  exposed  by  Griesbach,  and  others. 
They  also  forged  certain  rhapsodies  under  the  name  of  "  Sybbiline 
Oracles,"  and  then  adduced  them  as  prophetic  proofs  of  the  truth  of 
their  religion.  They  also  interpolated  certain  clumsy  forgeries  as  pro- 
phecies of  Jesus  into  their  copies  of  their  Greek  version  of  the  Old 
Testament.  7.  The  present  canon  of  the  New  Testament  has  never 
been  sanctioned  by  the  general  consent  of  Christians.  The  Syrian 
Church  rejects  some  of  its  books.  Some  of  its  books  were  not  admitted 
until  after  long  opposition,  and  not  until  several  hundred  years  after 
Christ.  The  lists  of  what  were  considered  as  canoni«al  books,  differ  in 
different  ages,  and  some  books  now  acknowledged  by  nil  Christians  to  be 
forgeries,  were  in  the  second  and  third  centuries  considered  as  equally 
apostolic  as  those  now  received,  and  as  such  were  publicly  read  in  the 
Churches.  8.  The  reason  why  we  have  not  now  extant  gospels  differ- 
ent, and  contradictory  to  those  now  received,  is  because  that  the  sector 
party,  which  finally  got  the  better  of  its  adversaries,  and  styled  itself 
Catholic,  or  orthodox,  took  care  to  burn  and  destroy  the  heretics, 
and  their  gospels  with  them.  They  likewise  took  care  to  hunt  up,  and 
burn  the  books  of  the  Pagan  adversaries  of  Christianity,  "  because  they 
were  shockingly  offensive  to  pious  ears."  9.  Semler  considered  the 
New  Testament  as  a  collection  of  pious  frauds,  written  for  pious  pur- 
poses, in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century,  (the  very  time  assigned 
for  their  first  appearance  by  Dodwell.)  Evanson  adopts,  and  gives  good 
reasons  for  a  similar  opinion  with  regard  to  most  of  the  books  which 
go  to  compose  it.  Lastly.  The  reason  why  the  New  Testament  canon 
has  been  so  long  respected,  seems  to  have  been  purely  owing  to  the 
credulity  of  the  ignorant,  and  the  laziness,  indifference,  or  fears  of  the 
learned. 

Douglas,  in  his  famous  "  CRiTERnm,"  gives  us  as  infallible  tests, 
by  which  we  may  distinguish  when  written  accounts  of  miracles  are 
fabulous,  the  following  marks. 

1.  "  We  have  reason  to  suspect  (he  says.)  the  accounts  to  be  false 
when  they  are  not  published  to  the  world  till  after  the  time  when  they 
are  said  to  have  been  performed." 

2.  "  We  have  reason  to  suspect  them  to  be  fake,  when  they  are  not 
published  in  the  place  where  it  is  pretended  the  facts  were  wrought,  but 


141 

mony  in  favour  of  it  are  the  four  Evangelists ;  four  witness- 
es, the  like  of  whose  written  testimony,  (being  as  contradic- 
tory as  that  is,)  to  say  no  more,  certainly  would  not,  we  be- 
lieve, be  received  in  a  modern  Court  of  Justice  to  settle  the 

are  propagated  only  at  a  great  distance  from  the  supposed  scene  of 
action." 

3.  "  Supposing  the  accounts  to  have  the  two  fore-mentioned  qualifi- 
cations, we  still  have  reason  to  suspect  them  to  be  false,  if  in  the  time 
when,  and  at  the  place  where  they  took  their  rise,  they  might  be  suffer- 
ed to  pass  without  examination. 

These  are  the  marks  he  gives  us  as  infallible  tests  by  which  we  may 
distinguish  the  accounts  of  miracles  in  the  New  Testament  to  be  true  ; 
and  accounts  of  miracles  in  other  books  (though  supported  by  more  tea- 
timony  than  the  former,)  to  be  false  ;  with  how  much  justice  may  be 
evident  from  the  following  observations. 

1.  If  "  we  have  reason  to  suspect  the  accounts  to  be  false,  when  they 
are  not  published  to  the  world  till  long  after  the  time  when  they  are 
said  to  have  been  performed,"  then  we  have  reasons  to  suspect  the  ac- 
counts given  in  the  four  Gospels  ;  for  we  have  no  proof  in  the  world, 
that  any  of  them  were  written  till  nearly  one  hundred  years  after  the 
supposed  writers  of  them  were  all  dead. 

2.  If  "  we  have  reason  to  suspect  them  to  be  false,  when  they  are 
not  published  in  the  place  where  it  is  pretendedthe  facts  were  wrought, 
but  are  propagated  only  at  a  great  distance  from  the  supposed  scene  of 
action,"  then  it  is  still  further  evident  that  the  accounts  in  question  are 
not  true.     For  they  were  apparently  none  of  them  published  in  Judea, 
the  scene  of  the  events  recorded  in  trhern.     But  it  is  pretty  clear  that 
they  were  written  in  countries  at  a  distance  from  Palestine.     And  the 
facts  recorded  in  them  were   no  where  so  little  believed  as  in  Judea, 
among  the  people  in  whose  sight  they  are  said  to  have  been  wrought, 
where  they  ought,  if  true,  to  have  met  with  most  credit.    It  is,  howewer, 
evident  from  the  histories  themselves,  that  these  stories  were  laughed 
at  by  the  learned,  and  intelligent  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  disbelieved 
by  the  great  body  of  the  people.      In  truth  the  fust  Christians  were 
merely  one  husdred  and  twenty  Galileans,  who  asserted  to  their  co- 
religionists, that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  expected  Messiah.    It  was 
a  mere  national  quarrel  between  the  great  body  of  the  Jews,  and  a  few 
schismatics.     This  is  evident  from  the  Acts,  where  we  find  that  for 
several  years  they  confined  their  preaching  to  Jews  only.     Till    the 
conversion  of  Cornelius,  they  do  not  appear  to  have  thought  the  Gen- 
tiles any  way  interested  hi  their  dispute  with  their  countrymen.      So 
that  it  is  not  improbable,  (as  the  Jewish  Christians  dwindled   very 
rapidly,)  that  had  it  not  been  for  the  Gentile  proselytes  to  Judaism, 
Christianity  would  have  perished  in  its  cradle.     These  people  were 
very  numerous,  and  formed  the  connecting  link  between  the  Jews  and 
the  Gentiles.     And  it  was  through  the  medium  of  these  people,  that 
Christianity  became  known  to  the  heathens.  For  we  find  that  after  the 
Apostles  could  make  nothing  of  the  stubborn  Jews  "  they  ehoek  their 
garments,  and  told  them  that  from  henceforth  we  go  to  the  Gentiles."  Ac- 
cordingly, whei  the  Apostles  preached   in  the  synagogues,  and  the 
Jews  "  contradicted,  and  blasphemed,"  and  made  fun  of  theic  mode  of 
proving  from   the  Prophets,  •'  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  ;*  yet  the 
*'  proselyle»  and  devout  women"  listened,  and  believed. 


142 

fact  about  a  debt  of  jive  dollars.  And  if  it  be  still  urged,  that 
such  a  story  is  unparalleled,  and  therefore  respectable,  we  say 
that  it  is  not  unparalleled  ;  as  we  have  an  account  of  a  false 
Messiah,  who  applied  the  Prophecies  to  himself,  had  a  fore- 
runner^ and  more  than  two  hundred  thousand  followers  who 
publicly  acknowledged  him  for  the  Messiah,  raised  contribu- 
tions, and  supported  him  magnificently.  He  too  quoted 
the  Prophets  as  speaking  concerning  him,  and  was  said  to 
have  worked  divers  miracles,  and  was  ultimately  put  to  death 
by  the  order  of  the  Grand  Seignor  at  Constantinople  ;  yet 
nevertheless  was  said  to  have  been  seen  again  by  certain  of  his 
followers,  who  wrote  Books  in  favour  of  that  fact,  and  of  his 
Messiahship.  Many  learned  Rabbins  enrolled  themselves 
as  his  Disciples,  and  wrote  controversial  ^uorks  in  his  cause, 
as  Paul  did.  And  to  conclude,  his  party  was  not  entirely 
extinct  within  a  very  few  years.  Yet  notwithstanding  all 
this,  he  was  an  Impostor ;  and  no  man  now  believes  the 

3.  If  "  supposing  the  accounts  to  have  the^two  foregoing  qualifica- 
tions, we  still  may  suspect  them  to  be  false,  if  in  the  time  when,  and  in 
the  place  where  they  took  their  rise,  they  might  be  suffered  to  pass 
without  examination,"  we  have  still  less  reason  to  believe  the  Gospels. 
For  one  reason  why  they  might  be  suffered  to  pass  without  examina- 
tion is,  where  the  miracles  proposed  coincided  with  the  notions,  and 
superstitious  prejudices  of  those  whom  they  were  reported  ;  and  who, 
on  that  account,  might  be  prone  to  receive  them  unexamined.  Now 
we  have  documents  in  plenty,  which  abundantly  prove,  along  with  the 
virtues,  the  extreme  credulity,  and  simplicity  of  the  Primitive  Chris- 
tians ;  whose  maxim  was  "  believe,  but  do  not  examine,  and  thy  faith 
shall  save  thee."  Another  very  good  reason  why  they  might  be  suffer- 
ed to  pass  wihout  examination  is,  that  the  miracles  of  the  Gospels  were 
entirely  unknown  to,  or  at  least  unacknowledged  by  any  Heathen  or 
Jew  of  the  age  in  which  they  are  recorded  to  have  happened.  Nobody 
seems  to  have  known  a  syllable  about  them  but  the  Apostles  and  their 
converts.  Even  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  were  not  generally 
known  to  the  heathens  until  some  hundred  years  after  the  birth  of 
Jesus,  and  it  seems  from  the  few  fragments  of  their  works  come  down 
to  us,  that  the  only  notice  they  did  take  of  them  was  to  accuse  them,  of 
telling  lies,  and  old  wives'  fables.  And  as  for  the  Jews,  the  origin  and 
early  propagation  of  Christianity  was  so  very  obscure,  that  those  who 
lived  nearest  the  times  of  the  Apostles  do  not  seem  to  have  known  any 
thing  about  them,  or  their  doctrines. 

Though  a  little  out  of  place,  yet  I  will  here  adduce  a  fact  which  illus- 
trates and  exemplifies  the  power  of  enthusiasm  to  make  people  believe 
they  saw  what  they  did  not  see.  -Lucian  gives  an  account  of  one  Pere- 
grinus,  a  philosophist  very  famous  in  his  time,  who  had  a  great  number 
of  disciples.  He  ended  his  life  by  throwing  himself,  in  the  presence 
of  assembled  thousands,  into  a  burning  pile.  Yet  such  was  the  enthu- 
siastic veneration  of  his  followers,  that  sorrte  of  his  disciples  did 
solemnly  aver,  that  they  had  seen  him  after  his  death,  clothed  in  white 
and  crowned  ;  and  they  were  bejieved,  insomuch  that  altars  and  statues 
were  erected  to  Peregrinus  as  to  a  demigod.  See  Lucian's  account. 


143 

stories  of  his  miracles,  or  his  resurrection  ;  *otwithstanding 
that  both  are  affirmed  by  more  recent,*more  learned,  and  more 
respectable  testimony,  than  is,  or  can  be  offered  in  favour  of 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  The  name  of  this  famous  Im- 
postor was  Zebathai  Tzevi,  and  his  history  is  given  by  Bas- 
nage  in  his  History  of  the  Jews. 

I  wish  the  Christian  Reader  to  peruse  carefully,  and 
coolly,  that  account :  and  if  he  then  persists  in  believing  the 
History  given  by  the  Evangelists, — with  such  faith  as  his, 
he  certainly  ought  to  be  able  to  move  mountains  ;  and  I 
have  no  doubt  at  all,  that  with  such  a  good  natured  under- 
standing as  his,  if  he  had  found  in  his  New  Testament  the 
story  of  Jonah  misquoted,  and  by  a  small  transposition  a  la 
mode  de  Surenhusius  representing,  that  "  Jonah  swallowed 
the  whale  !"  his  sturdy  "  confidence  in  things  not  seen," 
would,  I  doubt  not,  have  enabled  him  without  difficulty  to 
ewallow  the  Prophet  with  the  whale  in  his  belly. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

I  have  already  expressed  my  respect  for  the  character  of 
Jesus  Christ.  And  I  again  declare,  that  I  request  that  it 
may  be  distinctly  understood,  that  by  nothing  that  I  have 
said,  do  I  intend  to  impeach,  or  to  depreciate  his  moral  cha- 
racter. Whatever  may  have  been  his  defects,  or  whatever 
were  his  foibles,  they  must  have  been  the  faults  of  his  mind, 
not  of  his  heart.  For  though  he  may  have  been  a  mistaken 
enthusiast,  yet  I  do  firmly  believe,  that,  with  such  a  charac- 
ter as  he  is  represented  to  have  possessed,  he  could  not 
have  been  either  a  hypocrite,  or  a  wilful  impostor.  And  if 
it  be  replied,  that  I  have,  by  some  observations  on  his  con- 
duct, indirectly  impeached  the  perfection  of  his  moral  cha- 
racter, I  answer,  that  if  so,  it  is  certainly  my  misfortune, 
but  it  may  not  be  his  fault.  To  explain  this  observation,  I 
request  the  reader  to  recall  to  mind,  that  Jesus  wrote  no- 
thing himself,  that  the  only  accounts  we  have  of  him  are  con- 
tained in  books,  probably  apocryphal,  and  certainly  not 
generally  known  till  after  the  middle  of  the  second  century 
from  his  birth.  The  gospels  now.  extant  do  not  appear  to 
have  been  known  to  Justin  Martyr  ;  and  the  earliest  Fa- 


144 

thers  in  their  writings  generally  quote  traditions  concerning 
Jesus  instead  of  histories.  Since  these  things  are  so,  who 
knews,  but  that  the  authors  of  the  histories  of  him  now  ex- 
tant, have  attributed  to  him  words  and  actions  of  which  he 
was  guiltless,  ^e  know  how  prone  mankind  are  to  invent 
falsehoods  concerning  eminent  men  ;  for  instance,  Mahomet 
expressly  disclaimed  the  power  of  working  miracles,  and 
yet  the  writings  of  his  early  followers  ascribe  hundreds  to 
him.  Why  may  it  not  be  possible  then,  since  Jesus  wrote 
nothing  himself,  that  these  books  ascribe  to  him  words,  and 
actions  he  neither  spake,  nor  performed-?  God  grant  that 
this  may  one  day  be  proved  !  For  I  should  rejoice  to  find 
the  meek,  gentle,  and  amiable  man  of  "Nazareth  proved 
guiltless  of  the  follies,  and  impieties  attributed  to  him  in  the 
New  Testament.  And  though  I  am  obliged  in  this  work, 
to  take  the  New  Testament  as  I  find  it,  and  to  reason  con- 
cerning the  works,  and  words  of  Jesus  as  I  find  them  there 
expressed,  yet  I  would  earnestly  request  the  reader  to  con- 
sider me  willing,  and  desirous  to  exempt  the  author,  or 
rather  the  cause  of  the  Christian  Religion,  from  the  reproach 
of  the  sentiments  I  am  bound  by  my  regard  for  ONE  GOD, 
and  His  attributes,  to  express  for  the  system  itself.  Yes  ! 
I  can  in  my  own  mind  separate  Jesus  from  his  Religion  and 
his  Followers.  I  read  with  admiration  many  of  his  beautir 
ful  parables.  I  shall  ever  contemplate  his  mildness  and  be- 
nevolence with  respect :  and  I  peruse  with  pity,  the  recital 
of  his  suiferings,  and  cruel  death.  All  this  I  have  done,  and' 
I  believe  I  shall  ever  do ;  but  I  cannot !  I  cannot  in  effect 
deny  the  ONE  living,  and  true  GOD,  and  renounce  my 
reason,  and  common  sense,  by  believing  all  the  contra- 
dictory, and  strange  doctrines  contained  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament. 

Having  unburthened  my  mind  upon  this  subject,  and 
frankly  expressed  my  sentiments  and  feelings  with  regard 
to  the  character  of  Jesus,  I  hope  I  may  now  be  allowed 
(without  incurring  the  charge  of  maliciously  exposing  him, 
or  the  twelve  Apostles,  to  reproach)  to  state  my  opinions 
with  regard  to  the  merit  of  the  moral  maxims  ascribed  to 
him  and  them  in  the  New  Testament.  And  I  again  caution 
the  reader,  that  he  is  not  obliged  to  lay  to  his,  or  their  charge 
the  mischievous  consequences  that  originated  from  acting 
upon  these  maxims  and  principles  :  since  it  is  by  no  means 
impossible,  that  they  may  have  been  falsely  ascribed  to  him 
and  to  them. 


145 

Now  then,  let  us  attend  to  the  subject  of  the  chapter, 
viz.  the  moral  maxims  ascribed  to  Jesus.  These  moral  max- 
ims consist  of  1st.  Those  which  were  adopted  by  him  from 
the  Old  Testament.  2d.  Those  of  which  he  himself  is  de- 
scribed as  being  the  author.  With  the  %  consideration  of 
those  of  the  first  class,  I  shall  not  trouble  the  reader,  but 
shall  devote  this  chapter  to  the  examination  of  those  which 
are  supposed  to  have  originated  from  him.  These  are  1st. 

*  Do  to  others  what  you  would  that  others  should  da  to  you.  * 
2nd.  '  Resist  not  the  injurious  person,  but  if  a  man  smite 
thee  on  one  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also.'     3rd.  '  If  a 
man  ask  thy  cloak,  give  him  thy  coat  also.'     4th.  *  If  thou 
wouldest  be  perfect,  sell  all  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor ; 
and  come  follow  me.'     5th.  «  Unless  a  man  hate  his  father, 
and  mother,  and  wife,  and  children,  and  possessions,  yea, 
and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple.'     6th. — 

*  Take  no  thought  for  the  morrow.' 

With  regard  io  the  first  of  these  maxims,  it  does  not  be- 
long to  Jesus  as  the  author.  It  is  found  in  the  book  of  To- 
bit,  ch.  iv.  15,  and  it  was  a  maxim  well  known  to  the  Rab- 
bins. It  is  found  in  the  Talmud  verbatim.  "  What  thou 
wouldest  not  have  done  to  thee,  do  not  thou  to  another. — 
(Tal.  Bab.  Schabbat  fol.  31.)  So  also  HUM  addressed  a 
Proselyte,  thus,  "  what  is  hateful  to  thee,  do  not  thou  to  thy 
neighbour."  Several  other  expressions  of  Jesus  were,  it 
appears  from  the  Talmud,  proverbial  expressions  in  use  a- 
mong  the  Jews.  For  instance,  the  original  of  that  saying 
recorded  Mat.  vii.  2.  "  With  whatsoever  measure  ye  mete," 
&c.  is  found  in  the  Talmud  of  Babylon  (Sanhedrim  fol.  100, 
Sotah  ch.  4,  7,  8,  9.)  "With  whatsoever  measure  any  one 
metes  it  shall  be  measured  to  him."  So  also  the  original 
of  that  expression  of  "Cast  out  the  beam  out  of  thine  own 
eye,  and  then  thou  shalt  see  clearly  to  cast  the  mote  out 
of  thy  brother's  eye,"  is  to  be  found  in  the  Talmud. 

What  is  called  by  Christians  "  the  Lord's  Prayer,"  is 
merely  a  few  clauses  taken  from  Jewish  Prayers  and  put 
together*  Very  many  instances  of  a  similar  nature  to  these 
might  be  produced !  but  as  I  must  be  brief,  the  reader  is 
referred  for  further  satisfaction  to  the  works  of  Lightfoot, 
where  he  will  learn  by  extracts  from  Jewish  writings  the 
source  and  meaning  of  many  more  of  the  sayings  of  Jesus. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  most  disagreeable  part  of  the  sub- 


146 

ject,  viz.:  the  consideration  of  the  other  maxims  mentioned, 
which  it  must  be  allowed  do  belong  to  Jesus,  or  at  least  to 
the  New  Testament,  since  they  are  the  peculiar  moral  prin- 
ciples of  Christianity,  and  the  honour  of  them  can  be  chal- 
lenged by,  I  believe,  no  other  religion. 

These  precepts  are  so  extremely  hyperbolical,  that  they 
are  not,  and  cannot  be  perfectly  observed  by  any  Christian* 
who  does  not  detach  himself  completely  from  the  business 
of  Society ;  and  these  maxims,  (which,  as  I  said  before,  are 
the  only  part  of  the  morality  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
is  not  borrowed,)  never  have  been  obeyed  by  any  but  the 
Primitive  Christians  ;  and  by  the  Monks,  and  Anchorets  ; 
for  even  the  Quakers  and  Shakers,  eminent  as  they  are  in 
Christian  morality,  have  never  been  able  to  come  quite  up 
to  the  self  denial  required  by  the  New  Testament. 

Indeed,  the  moral  maxims  peculiar  to  Christianity  are 
impracticable,  except  by  one  who  confines  his  wealth  to 
the  possession  of  a  suit  of  clothes,  and  wooden  platter, 
and  who  lives  in  a  cave  or  a  monastery.  They  bear  the 
stamp  of  enthusiasm  upon  their  very  front,  and  we  have 
always  seen,  and  ever  shall  see,  that  they  are  not  fit  for 
man ;  that  they  lift  him  out  of  the  sphere  in  which  God 
designed  him  to  move :  that  they  are  useless  to  society, 
and  frequently  produce  the  most  dangerous  consequences 
to  it.  In  a  word,  in  these  maxims  we  find  commands,  the 
fulfilment  of  which  is  impossible  by  any  man  who  is  a  hus- 
band, a  father,  or  a  citizen. 

It  is  an  outrage  to  human  nature,  and  to  common  sense, 
to  order  a  virtuous  man,  in  order  to  reach  perfection,  to 
strip  himself  of  his  property ;  to  offer  the  other  cheek  to 
receive  a  new  outrage ;  not  to  resist  the  most  unjust  vio- 
lence, injury,  and  insult ;  not  to  defend  himself  or  his  pro- 
perty when  "  sued  at  the  law ;"  to  quit  his  house  and  goods, 
and  to  hate  his  parents,  and  brethren,  and  wife,  and  chil- 
dren, for  the  sake  of  Jesus  ;  to  refuse  and  reject  innocent 
pleasures ;  to  deny  himself  lawful  enjoyments,  appointed 
by  the  Creator  to  make  the  existence  of  man  a  blessing  to 
himself  and  others. 

Who  does  not  see  in  these  commands  the  language  of 
enthusiasm,  of  hyperbole  ?  These  maxims  !  are  they  not 
directly  fitted  to  discourage,  and  debase  a  man  ?  to  degrade 


147 

him  in  his  own  eyes,  and  those  of  others  ?  to  plunge  him 
into  despair  ?  And  would  not  the  literal  fulfilment  of  them 
prove  destructive  to  society  ?  What  shall  we  say  of  that 
morality  which  orders  the  heart  to  detach  itself  from  objects, 
which  God,  and  reason,  and  nature  order  it  to  love  ?  To 
refuse  to  enjoy  innocent  and  lawful  happiness, — what  is  it 
but  to  despise  the  benefits  of  God  ?  What  real  good  can 
result  for  society  from  these  melancholy  virtues,  which 
Christianity  regards  as  perfections  ?  Will  a  man  become  more 
useful  to  society  when  his  mind  is  perpetually  inquieted  by 
imaginary  terrors,  by  mournful  thoughts,  which  prevent  him 
from  fulfilling  the  duties  he  owes  to  his  family,  his  country, 
and  those  with  whom  he  is  connected  ? 

It  may  be  safely  said,  that  Enthusiasm  is  the  base  of  the 
morality  of  Christianity,  I  say,  the  morality  of  Chirstianity, 
meaning  thereby,  not  the  morality  of  those  called  Christians, 
but  the  morality  expressed  and  required  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. The  virtues  it  recommends,  are  the  virtues  carica- 
tured, and  rendered  extravagant ;  virtues  which  divide  a 
man  from  his  neighbour,  and  plunge  him  in  melancholy, 
and  render  him  useless,  and  unhappy.  In  this  world  we 
want  human  virtues,  not  those  which  make  a  man  a  mis- 
anthrope. Society  desires,  and  wants  virtues  that  help  to 
maintain  it,  which  gives  it  energy  and  activity.  It  wants 
virtues  which  render  families  industrious,  and  united  ;  and 
which  incite,  and  enable  every  one  to  obtain  lawful  plea- 
sures, and  to  augment  the  general  felicity.  But  the  pecu- 
liar virtues  of  the  New  Testament,  either  debase  the  mind 
by  overwhelming  fears,  or  intoxicate  it  with  visionary  hopes, 
both  which  are  equally  fitted  to  turn  away  men  from  their 
proper  duties. 

In  truth,  what  advantages  can  society  derive  from  those 
virtues  styled  by  Christians  Evangelical  ?  which  they  pre- 
fer to  the  social  virtues,  the  real,  and  the  useful,  and  with- 
out which,  they  assert,  a  man  cannot  please  God.  Let  us 
examine  these  vaunted  perfections,  and  let  us  see  of  what 
utility  they  can  be  to  society  ;  and  whether  they  really 
merit  the  preference  which  is  given  them  by  their  advo- 
cates. 

The  first  of  these  Christian  Virtues,  which  serves  as  a 
base  for  all  the  others  is  Faith.  It  consists  in  believing 
the  truth  of  dogmas,  of  absurd  fables,  which  Christianity  (ac- 


148 

cording  to  the  Catechisms)  orders  its  disciples  to  believe. 
Dogmas,  as  absurd  and  impossible  as  a  square  circle  !  or  a  round 
triangle  !  From  which  we  see,  that  this  virtue  exacts  an  en- 
tire renunciation  of  common  sense  :  an  assent  to  incredible 
facts,  and  a  blind  credulity  in  absurd  dogmas  ;  which,  yet, 
every  Christian  is  required  to  believe,  under  pain  of  damna- 
tion. 

This  virtue  too,  though  necessary  to  all  men,  is  neverthe- 
less the  gift  of  Heaven !  the  effect  of  special  grace.  It  for- 
bids doubt  and  examination ;  it  forbids  a  man  the  right  to 
exercise  his  reason  ;  it  deprives  him  of  the  liberty  of  think-r 
ing,  and  degrades  him  into  a  bearded  baby. 

This  Faith  vanishes,  when  a  man  re'asons:  this  virtue 
cannot  sustain  a  tranquil  scrutiny.  And  this  is  the  reason 
why  all  thorough  going  Christians  are  naturally,  and  conse- 
quently, the  enemies  of  Science.  This  miraculous  Faith, 
which  "  believeth  all  things,"  is  not  given  to  persons  enlight- 
ened by  Science  and  Reflection,  and  accustomed  to  think. — 
It  is  not  given  but  to  those  who  are  afraid  to  think,  lest 
they  should  offend  God. 

The  next  Christian  Virtue  which  flows  from  the  first,  i* 
Hope,  founded  upon  the  promises  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment makes  to  those  who  render  themselves  miserable  in 
this  life.  It  nourishes  their  enthusiasm,  it  makes  them 
"  forget  the  things  that  are  on  earth,  and  reach  forward  unto 
the  things" — which  are  in  another  world.  It  renders  them 
useless  here  below,  and  makes  them  firmly  believe,  that 
God  will  recompence  in  Heaven  the  pains  they  have  taken 
to  make  themselves  miserable  on  Earth.  How  can  a  man, 
occupied  with  such  expectations  of  heavenly  happiness, 
concern  himself  at  all  with,  or  for  the  actual,  and  present 
happiness  of  those  around  him,  while  he  is  indifferent  as  to 
his  own  ?  And  how  can  he  help  this,  when  he  believes,  that 
"  friendship  with  the  world  is  enmity  with  God  ?" 

The  third  Virtue  is  Charity.  We  have  elsewhere  said, 
that  if  universal  love,  or  charity  means  only  general  benevo- 
lence, and  a  desire  to  make  others  happy,  and  to  do  them 
good,  all  this  is  commanded  by  reason  and  the  ancient  re- 
velation ;  but  if  by  this  precept  it  is  commanded,  to  love 
those  who  hate,  oppress,  or  insult  us,  we  do  not  at  all  scruple 
to  assert,  that  the  thing  is  impossible,  and  unnatural.  For 


149 

though  we  can  abstain  from  hurting  our  enemy  ;  or  even 
can  do  him  good,  we  cannot  really  love  him.  Love  is  a 
movement  of  the  heart,  which  is  governed  and  directed  by 
the  laws  of  our  nature,  to  those  whom  we  think  worthy  of 
it,  and  to  those  only. 

Charity,  considered  as  general  benevolence  of  disposition, 
is  virtuous  and  necessary.  It  is  nothing  more  than  a  feel- 
ing which  interests  us  in  favour  of  our  fellow  beings.  But 
how  is  this  feeling  consistent  with  the  peculiar  doctrines  ,<xf 
the  Gospel  ?  According  to  its  maxims,  it  is  a  crime  to  of- 
fer God  a  heart  whose  aifections  are  shared  by  terrestrial 
objects.  And  besides,  does  not  experience  show,  that  de- 
votees obliged  by  principle  to  hate  themselves,  are  little  dis- 
posed to  give  better  treatment  to  others. 

We  should  not  be  surprised  that  maxims  originating  with 
enthusiasm,  should  aim  at,  and  have  the  effect  of  driving 
man  out  of  himself.  In  the  delirium  of  its  enthusiasm,  this 
religion  forbids  a  man  to  love  himself.  It  commands  him 
to  hate  all  pleasures  but  those  of  religion,  and  to  cherish  a 
long  face.  It  attributes  to  him  as  meritorious  all  the  vo- 
luntary evils  he  inflicts  upon  himself.  From  thence  origi- 
nate those  austerities,  those  penances,  destructive  to 
health ;  those  cruel  privations  by  which  the  inhabitants  of 
the  monastic  cell  kill  themselves  by  inches,  in  order  to  me- 
rit the  joys  of  Heaven.  Now  how  can  good  sense  admit 
that  God  delights  in  seeing  his  creatures  torment  them- 
selves ? 

It  may  be  said  to  all  this,  perhaps,  that  this  is  mere  de- 
clamation, for  Christians  now  a  days  do  not  torment  them- 
selves, but  live  as  comfortably  as  others.  To  this  I  answer 
that  Christianity  is  to  be  judged  not  by  what  Christians  do, 
but  by  what  it  commands  them  to  do.  Now  I  presume  it 
will  not  be  denied,  that  the  New  Testament  commands  its 
professors  to  renounce  the  world,  to  be  dead  to  the  world, 
to  "crucify  the  flesh  with  its  passions  and  desires."  Cer- 
tainly these  directions  were  literally  complied  with  by  the 
Primitive  Christians ;  and  in  doing  so  they  acted  consistently. 
In  those  times,  the  deserts,  the  mountains,  the  forests  were 
peopled  with  perfect  Christians;  who  withdrew  from  the 
world,  deprived  their  families  of  support,  and  their  country 
of  citizens,  in  order  to  lead  unmolested  « the  divine  life." — 


150 

It  was  the  New  Testament  morality  that  spawned  those  le- 
gions of  Monks,  and  Cenobites,  who  thought  to  secure  the 
favour  of  Heaven,  by  burying  their  talents  in  the  deserts 
and  devoting  themselves  to  inaction  and  celibacy.  And  at 
this  very  day,  we  see  these  very  same  things  in  those  Chris- 
tian countries,  which  are  truly  faithful  to  the  principles  of 
their  religion. 

In  fine,  Christianity  seems  from  the  first,  to  have  taken 
pains  to  set  itself  in  point  blanc  opposition  to  nature,  and 
reason.  If  it  admits  and  includes  some  virtues  ordered, 
and  appointed  by  God,  good  sense,  and  universal  experi- 
ence, it  drives  them  beyond  their  bounds  into  extravagance. 
It  preserves  no  just  medium,  which  is  the  point  of  perfec- 
tion. Voluptuousness,  adultery  and  debauchery  are  for- 
bidden by  the  laws  of  God  and  reason.  But  Christianity 
not  content  with  commanding  and  encouraging  Marriage, 
as  did  the  Old  Testament,  must  forsooth  go  beyond  it,  and 
therefore  encourages  celibacy,  as  the  state  of  perfection. — 
God  says,  in  Genesis,  "  it  is  not  good  that  man  should  be 
alone.  I  will  make  a  companion  for  him,"  A  nd  He  blessed 
all  his  creatures,  saying,  "  increase  and  multiply."  But 
the  Gospel  annuls  this  law,  and  represents  a  single  life  to 
be  most  pleasing,  to  the  very  Being,  whose  very  first  com- 
mand was,  "  increase  and  multiply  !"  It  advises  a  man  to 
die  without  posterity,  to  refuse  citizens  to  the  State,  and  to 
himself,  a  support  for  his  old  age. 

It  is  to  no  purpose  to  deny  that  Christianity  recommends 
all  this ;  I  say,  it  substantially  does  !  and  I  boldly  appeal, — 
not  to  a  few  Protestant  Divines, — but  to  the  New  Testament ; 
to  the  Homilies  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  ;  to  the  His- 
tory, and  Practice  of  the  Primitive  Christians;  to  the  innu- 
merable Monasteries  of  Europe,  and  Asia ;  to  the  immense 
multitudes  who  have  lived  and  died  Hermits ;  and,  finally, 
(because  I  know  very  well,  the  Protestant  Divines  attribute 
these  follies  to  the  influence  of  Platonism,  Pythagoreanism, 
and  several  other  isms  upon  pure  Christianity;}  I  appeal  to 
living  evidence  now  in  the  world,  to  the  only  thorough 
going  Christians  in  it, viz.  to  the  Society  of  the  Shakers,  who 
I  maintain,  and  can  prove  to  be  true,  genuine  imitators  of 
the  Primitive  Christians  ;  and  a  perfect  exemplification  of 
their  manners  and  modes  of  thinking.  1  adduce  them  the 
more  confidently,  because,  being  simple  and  unlearned., 
their  character  has  been  formed  by  the  spirit  of  the  New 


151 

Testament,  and  perfectly  represents  the  effects  of  its  princi- 
ples fully  carried  out,  and  acted  upon.  They  never  heard 
of  Platonism  or  of  Pythagoras  in  their  lives,  and  consequent- 
ly the  Polemic  tricks  and  evasions,  which  have  been,  as 
hinted  just  now,  resorted  to  by  Protestant  Divines,  to  shift 
from  the  shoulders  of  Christianity  to  those  of  Plato  or  Py- 
thagoras, the  obnoxious  principles  we  have  been  considering, 
are  of  no  use  in  this  case,  as,  whatever  the  characters  of  these 
Shakers  may  be,  they  were  formed  by  the  New  Testament, 
and  by  nothing  else;  and  I  believe,  that  every  scholar  in 
Ecclesiastical  History,  who  reads  Brown's  History  of  the 
Shakers,  will  be  immediately,  and  powerfully  struck  with 
the  resemblance  subsisting  between  them,  and  the  Christians 
of  the  two  first  centuries. 

As  examples  of  the  effects  of  those  precepts  of  Christian 
morality,  which  command  us  to  bate  father,  and  mother,  and 
sister,  and  brother,  for  the  sake  of  Jesus,  take  the  following 
extracts  from  the  History  referred  to. 

"  According  to  their  faith,  natural  affection  must  be 
eradicated  ;  and  they  say  they  must  love  all  equally  alike, 
as  brothers,  and  sisters  in  the  gospel.  It  would  exceed  the 
limits  of  this  work  to  give  a  particular  account  of  the  vari- 
ous schemes  that  have  been  contrived,  to  destroy  all  natu- 
ral affection,  and  social  attachment  between  man  and  wife, 
parent  and  child,  brothers  and  sisters  ;  especially  towards 
such  as  have  left  the  society.  Two  instances  that  occurred 
about  this  time,  as  specimens  of  others,  may  suffice.  A 
mother,  who  had  renounced  the  faith,  (i.  e.  left  the  society,) 
came  to  Niskeuna  to  see  her  daughter.  Eldress  Hannah 
Matterson  told  the  daughter  to  go  into  the  room  to  her 
carnal  mother,  and  say,  "  What  do  you  come  here  for  ?  I 
don't  want  you  to  come  and  see  me  with  your  carnal  affec- 
tions !" 

"  The  mother  being  grieved,  replied,  "  I  did  not  ex- 
pect that  a  daughter  of  mine  would  ever  address  me  in  that 


"  The  daughter,  in  obedience  to  what  she  was  taught, 
replied  again,  "  You  have  come  here  with  your  carnal 
jleshly  desires,  and  I  don't  want  to  see  you"  and  left  her  mother. 

"  Some  time  after,  one  Duncan  Shapley,  who  had  be- 


152 

longed  to  the  society,  called  to  see  Abigail,  his  sister,  at 
Niskeuna,  whom  he  had  not  seen  for  six  or  seven  years  : 
but  he  was  not  admitted  ;  he  waited  some  time,  being  loth 
to  go  away  without  seeing  her :  at  length  she  was  ordered 
to  go  to  the  window  and  address  him  in  the  language  of  abuse 
and  scurrility.  The  words  she  made  use  of,  it  would  be 
indecent  to  mention.  For  this  she  was  applauded^  and  that 
in  the  author's  hearing,  when  he  belonged  to  the  s6ciety." 

This  man  gives  a  very  curious  account  how  the  Elders 
treated  "  their  babes"  in  their  spiritual  nursery ;  but  I  shall 
notice  only  one  or  two  examples,  which  illustrate  what  I 
have  advanced  concerning  the  natural  hostility  of  the  spirit 
of  the  New  Testament  towards  science.  "  I  know  of  seve- 
jal,  who,  soon  after  they  joined  the  Church,  have  been  coun- 
selled by  the  Elders  to  dispose  of  their  Books  ;  and  have  ac- 
cordingly done  it.  Elder  Ebenezer,  being  at  my  house  one 
day,  on  seeing  a  number  of  books,  he  said — "  Ah  !  Thomas 
must  put  away  his  books  if  he  intends  to  become  a  good 
believer." 

As  an  instance  of  its  effect  upon  the  human  understand- 
ing, take  the  following.  "  A  short  time  after,  being  at  a 
believer's  house,  at  eleven  o'clock  at  night,  they  all  having 
retired  to  rest,  and  I  laying  awake  in  a  dry,  well  finished 
room,  in  which  was  a  stove  and  fire,  there  fell  a  large  drop 
of  water  on  my  temples ;  on  examination,  I  could  not  c|isco- 
ver  where  the  water  came  from.  I  told  the  believers*  of  it 
in  the  morning." 

"  One  said,  '  Ah  !  it  is  a  warning  to  you  respecting  your 
unbelief.'  " 

"  I  then  assigned  some  inconclusive  reason,  how  the 
drop  might  have  become  formed  in  the  room,  and  its  falling." 

"  One  replied,  *  Ah  !  that  is  the  way,  you  render  a  na- 
tural reason  for  the  cause  of  every  thing,  and  so  reason  away 
your  faith,  and  yourself  out  of  the  gospel.'  " 

As  another  proof  that  genuine  Christianity  discourages 
marriage,  and  considers  celibacy  as  the  only  state  of  perfec- 
tion^ the  Shakers  allow  of  no  marriages  at  ull. 

Thus  you  see  that,  among  these  people,  to  become  a 


153 

" Good  Believer"  you  must  insult  your  parents,  revile  your 
brother,  despise  learning,  and  never  render  a  "  natural  rea- 
son" for  any  thing,  lest  you  should  "  reason  away  your  faith, 
and  yourself  out  of  the  Gospel" 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

After  having  seen  the  uselessness,  and  even  the  danger 
to  individuals,  of  the  perfections,  the  virtues,  and  the  duties 
which  Christianity  peculiarly  commands,  let  us  now  see 
whether  it  has  a  more  happy  influence  upon  politics,  or 
whether  it  produces  real  happiness  among  the  nations  with 
whom  this  religion  is  established,  and  the  spirit  of  it  faith- 
fully observed.  Let  us  do  so,  and  we  shall  find,  that  wherever 
Christianity  is  established  and  obeyed,  it  establishes  a  set  of 
laws  directly  opposed  to  those  of  a  well  ordered  national 
society ;  and  it  soon  mukes  this  disagreement  and  incompa- 
tibility distinctly  to  be  felt. 

Politics  are  intended  to  maintain  union  and  concord  among 
the  citizens.  Christianity,  though  it  preaches  universal 
love,  and  commands  its  followers  to  live  in  peace,  yet  by  a 
strange  inconsistency,  consequentially  annihilates  the'effect 
of  these  excellent  precepts,  by  the  inevitable  divisions  it 
causes  among  its  followers ;  who  necessarily  understand  dif- 
ferently the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  because  the  latter  is 
not  only  irreconcilably  contradictory  to  the  former,  but  is 
even  inconsistent  with  itself.  From  the  very  commencement 
of  Christianity,  we  perceive  very  violent  disputes  among  its 
founders  and  teachers.  And  through  every  succeeding 
century,  we  find,  in  the  History  of  the  Church,  nothing  but 
schism  and  heresy.  These  are  followed  by  persecutions 
and  quarrels,  exceedingly  well  adapted  to  destroy  this 
vaunted  spirit  of  concord,  said  by  its  defenders  to  be  peculiar 
to  Christianity ;  and  the  existence  of  which  is  in  fact  impos- 
sible in  a  Religion  which  is  one  entire  chaos  of  obscure  doc- 
trines, and  impracticable  precepts.  In  every  religious  dis- 
pute, both  parties  thought  that  God  was  on  their  side,  and 
consequently  they  were  obstinate  and  irreconcileable. — 
And  how  should  it  tyave  been  otherwise  ?  since  they  con- 
founded the  cause  of  God,  with  the  miserable  interests  of 


154 

their  own  vanity.  Thus,  being  little  disposed  to  give  way 
on  one  part  or  the  other,  they  cut  one  another's  throats,  they 
tormented,  they  burnt  each  other,  they  tore  one  another  to 
pieces;  and  having  exterminated,  or  put  down  the  ob- 
noxious sects,  they  sung  Te  Deum. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  pursue,  in  this  place,  the  horrid 
detail  of  Ecclesiastical  History,  as  connected  with  that  of 
the  Roman  Empire.  Mr.  Gibbon  has  exhibited  in  such 
colours  this  dreadful  record  of  follies,  and  of  crimes,  that  it 
is  difficult  to  see  how  the  maxim  of  judging  the  tree  by  its 
fruit,  will  not  fatally  affect  the  cause  of  the  Christian  Reli- 
gion. I  refer  to  Mr.  Gibbon's  History,  as  a  cool  and  im- 
partial narrative,  for  I  am  well  satisfied,  that  so  far  from 
having  reason  to  complain  of  him,  the  advocates  of  Christi- 
anity have  very  great  reason,  indeed,  to  thank  him  for  his 
forbearance,  since  with  his  eloquence,  he  might  have  drawn 
a  picture  that  would  have  made  humanity  shudder.  For, 
throughout  the  whole  history,  if  a  man  had  wished  to  know 
what  was  then  the  Orthodox  Faith,  the  best  method  of  as- 
certaining it  would  have  been,  undoubtedly,  to  ask,  "  Wliat 
is  the  Catechism  of  the  Public  Executioner" 

The  Christian  Religion  was,  it  is  evident  from  his  history, 
the  principal^  though  by  no  means  the  only  cause.,  of  the  De- 
cline and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire.  Because  it  degraded 
the  spirit  of  the  people,  and  because  it  produced  monks  and 
hermits  in  abundance,  but  yielded  no  soldiers.  The  Hea- 
then Adversaries  of  Christianity  were  in  the  right  when 
they  said,  that  "  if  it  prevailed  Rome  was  no  more  !"  The 
Christians  would  not  serve  in  the  armies  of  the  emperor,  if 
they  could  possibly  avoid  it.  They  justly  considered  the 
profession  of  a  soldier  and  that  of  a  Christian  as  incompati- 
ble. Celsus  accuses  them  of  abandoning  the  empire,  under 
whose  laws  they  lived,  to  its  enemies.  And  what  is  the  an- 
swer of  Origen  to  this  accusation  ?  Look  at  his  pitiful  re- 
ply !  He  endeavours  to  palliate  this  undutiful  refusal  by 
representing  that — "the  Christians  had  their  peculiar  camps, 
in  which  they  incessantly  combatted  for  the  safety  of  the 
Emperor  and  Empire,  by  lifting  up  their  right  hands — IN 
PRAYER"  !  !  (See  Origen  contra  Celsum.  Lib.  8,  p.  427.) 
This  is  a  sneaking  piece  of  business  truly  !  But  Origen 
could  have  given  another  answer,  if  he  had  dared  to  avow 
it,  which  is,  that  his  Co-religionists  in  his  time  had  not 
ceased  to  expect  their  master  momentarily  to  appear  ;  and 


155 

of  course,  it  little  mattered  what  became  of  the  Emperor, 
or  the  Empire.  This  notion  was  the  principal  engine  for 
making  Proselytes  ;  and  it  was  by  this  expectation  that 
many  were  frightened  into  Baptism. 

That  Christianity  was  considered  incompatible  with  the 
military  profession  is  evident  from  many  passages  of  the 
Fathers.  And  one  of  them,  I  believe  Tertullian,  ventures 
to  insinuate  to  the  Christians  in  the  Legions,  the  expediency 
of  deserting  to  rid  themselves  of  "  their  carnal  employment" 
Nay,  to  such  a  height  did  this  spirit  prevail,  that  it  never 
stopped,  till  it  taught  the  Roman  youth  in  Italy,  the  expe- 
dient of  cutting  off  the  thumbs  of  their  right-hand?,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  conscription,  and  that  they  might  be  allowed  to 
count  their  beads  at  home  in  quiet 

If  we  examine,  in  detail,  the  precepts  of  this  religion,  as 
they  affect  nations,  we  shall  see,  that  it  interdicts  every 
thing  which  can  make  a  nation  nourishing.  We  have  seen 
already  the  notion  of  imperfection  which  Christianity  at- 
taches to  marriage,  and  the  esteem,  and  preference  it  holds 
out  to  celibacy.  These  ideas  certainly  do  not  favour  popu- 
lation, which  is  without  contradiction  the  first  source  of 
power  to  every  state. 

Commerce  is  not  less  obnoxious  to  the  principles  of  a  Re- 
ligion whose  founder  is  represented  as  denouncing  an  ana- 
thema against  the  rich,  and  as  excluding  them  from  the  King- 
dom of  Heaven.  All  industry  is  equally  interdicted  to  per- 
feet  Christians,  who  are  to  spend  their  hves  "as  strangers, 
and  pilgrims  upon  earth,"  and  who  are  "not  to  take  care 
of  the  morrow."  .  . 

Cljrysostom  says,  that  "  a  Merchant  cannot  please  God, 
and  Chat  such  a  one  ought  to  be  chased  out  of  the  Church. 

No  Christian  also,  without  being  inconsistent,  can  serve 
in  the  army.  For  a  man,  who  is  never  sure  of  being  in  a 
state  of  grace,  is  the  most  extravagant  of  men,  if  by  the 
hazard  of  battle,  he  exposes  himself  to  eternal  perdition. — 
And  a  Christian  who  ought  to  love  his  enemies,  is  he  not 
guilty  of  the  greatest  of  crimes,  when  he  inflicts  death  upon 
a  hostile  Soldier  of  whose  disposition  he  knows  nothing  ! 
and  whom  he  may  at  a  single  stroke  precipitate  into  hell  ? 
A  Christian  soldier  is  a  monster !  a  nondescript !  and  Lac- 


156 

tantius  affirms,  that  "a  CItristian  cannot  be  either  a  Soldier 
or  an  accused  in  a  criminal  cause"  And  at  this  day,  the 
Quakers  and  Mennonites  refuse  to  carry  arms,  and  in  so 
doing  they  are  consistent  Christians. 

Christianity  declares  war  against  the  sciences ;  they  are 
regarded  as  an  obstacle  to  salvation.  "  Science  puffeth  up," 
says  Paul.  And  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  St.  Gregory, 
St.  Ambrose,  and  St.  Augustine  denounce  vehemently  Astro- 
nomy and  Geometry.  And  Jerom  declares,  that  he  was 
whipped  by  an  Angel  only  for  reading  that  Pagan  Cicero! 

It  has  been  often  remarked,  that  the  most  enlightened 
men  are  commonly  bad  Christians.  For  independent  of  its 
effects  on  faith,  which  science  is  exceedingly  apt  to  subvert, 
it  diverts  the  Christian  from  the  work  of  his  salvation,  which 
is  the  only  thing  needful.  In  a  word,  the  peculiar  princi- 
ples of  Christianity  literally  obeyed,  would  entirely  subvert 
from  its  foundations  every  political  society  now  existing, — 
If  this  assertion  is  doubted,  let  the  doubter  read  the  works 
of  the  early  Fathers,  and  he  will  see  that  their  morality  is 
totally  incompatible  with  the  preservation  and  prosperity 
of  a  State.  He  will  see  according  to  Lactantius,  and  others, 
that  "  HO  Christian  can  lawfully  be  a  Soldier."  That  ac- 
cording to  Justin,  "  no  Christian  can  be  a  Magistrate" — 
That  according  to  Chrysostom  "  no  Christian  ought  to  be 
a  Merchant."  And  that  according  to  several,  "  no  Chris- 
tian ought  to  study"  In  fine,  joining  these  maxims  together 
with  those  of  the  New  Testament,  it  will  follow,  that  a 
Christian,  who,  as  he  is  commanded,  aims  at  perfection,  is  a 
useless  member  of  the  community,  useless  to  his  family, 
and  to  all  around  him.  He  is  an  idle  dreamer,  who  thinks 
of  nothing  but  futurity ;  who  has  nothing  in  common  with 
the  interests  of  the  world,  and  according  to  Tertullian  "  has 
no  other  business  but  to  get  out  of  it  as  quick  as  possible. 

Let  us  hearken  to  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  and  we  shall 
abundantly  discover  the  truth  of  what  has  been  said. 

"The  manner  of  life,  (says  he,)  of  the  Christian  church 
surpasses  our  present  nature,  and  the  common  life  of  men. 
It  seeks  neither  marriage,  nor  children,  nor  riches.  In  fine, 
it  is  entirely  a  stranger  to  human  modes  of  living.  It  is  en- 
tirely absorbed  in  an  insatiable  love  of  heavenly  things. — 
Those  who  follow  this  course  of  life,  have  only  their  bodies 


157 

upon  earth,  their  whole  souls  are  in  heaven,  and  they  already 
dwell  among  pure,  and  celestial  intelligences,  and  they 
despise  the  manner  of  life  of  other  men"  Demonstrat.  Evang. 
vol.  ii.  p.  29. 

Indeed  a  man  firmly  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  Christianity 
cannot  attach  himself  to  any  thing  here  below.  Every 
thing  here  is  "  an  occasion  of  stumbling,  a  rock  of  offence." 
Every  thing  here  diverts  him  from  thinking  of  his  salva- 
tion. If  Christians  in  general,  happily,  for  society,  were 
not  inconsistent,  and  did  not  neglect  the  peculiar  precepts  of 
their  religion,  no  large  society  of  them  could  exist  ;  and  the 
nations  enlightened  by  the  gospel  would  turn  hermits,  and 
nuns.  All  business,  but  fasting  and  prayer,  would  be  at 
an  end.  There  would  be  nothing  but  groaning  in  "  this 
vale  of  tears  ;"  and  they  would  make  themselves,  and 
others,  as  miserable  as  possible,  from  the  best  of  motives,  viz  : 
the  desire  to  fulfil  what  they  mistakenly  conceived  to  be 
the  will  of  God. 

Is  this  a  picture  taken  from  the  life,  or  is  it  a  fanciful  re- 
presentation of  something  different  from  the  peculiar  mora- 
lity of  the  New  Testament  ?  This  serious  question  demands 
a  serious  answer.*  If  it  be  such  as  it  is  represented  above, 
and  such  it  really  appears  to  me,  and  such  /  have  unfortu- 
nately experienced  its  operation  to  be  on  my  own  mind — I 
would  respectfully  ask — -Can  such  a  Religion,  whose  pecu- 
liar principles  tend  to  render  men  hateful,  and  hating  one 
another :  which  has  often  rendered  Sovereigns  persecutors, 
and  subjects  either  rebels  or  slaves :  A  Religion,  whose  pe- 
culiar moral  principles  and  maxims,  teach  the  mind  to  gro- 
vel, and  humble,  and  break  down  the  energies  of  man ;  and 
which  divert  him  from  thinking  of  his  true  interests,  and 
the  true  happiness  of  himself,  and  his  fellow  men  :  can  such 
a  Religion,  I  would  respectfully  ask,  be  from  God  ?  since 
where  fully  obeyed,  it  would  prove  utterly  destructive  to  so- 
ciety. 


158 

CHAPTER  XIX. 


From  the  preceding  chapters  you  may  judge,  Reader,  of 
the  justice  and  truth  of  the  opinion,  that  "  the  yoke  of 
Christian  morality  is  easy,  and  its  burthen  light  ;"  and  also 
of  the  veracity  and  fairness  of  that  constant  assertion  of 
Divines,  "that  Jesus  came  to  remove  the  heavy  yoke  of  the 
Mosaic  Law,  and  to  substitute  in  its  room  one  of  easier  ob- 
servance." Whether  this,  their  assertion,  be  not  rash  and 
ill  founded.  I  will  cheerfully  leave  to  be  decided  by  any 
cool,  and  thinking  man,  who  knows  human  nature,  and  is 
acquainted  with  the  human  heart.  I  say,  I  would  cheer- 
fully leave  it  to  such  a  man,  whether  the  Mosaic  Law,  with 
all  its  numerous  rites,  and  ceremonial  observances,  nay, 
with  all  "  the  (ridiculous)  traditions  of  the  Elders," 
super  added,  would  not  be  much  more  bearable  to  human  na- 
ture, and  much  easier  to  be  observed  and  obeyed,  than 
such  precepts  as  these ;  "  Sell  all  thou  hast,  and  give  it  to 
the  poor."  "  If  a  man  ask  thy  cloak  give  him  thy  coat  also." 
"  Resist  not  the  injurious  person,  but  if  a  man  smite  thee  on 
one  cheek,  turn  to  him  the  other  also."  *'  Extirpate  and 
destroy  all  carnal  affection,  and  love  nothing,  but  religion.'* 
"  Take  no  thought  for  to-merrow  :" — I  am  confident  that 
the  decision  would  be  given  in  my  favour  ;  and  have  no 
doubt,  that  with  thinking  men,  the  contrary  opinion  would 
be  instantly  rejected  with  the  contempt  it  merits. 

Whether  the  Mosaic  Code  be  the  best  possible,  or  really 
divine,  is  of  no  consequence  in  this  enquiry,  rand  is  with  me, 
another  question  from  that  of  its  inftriority  to  that  of  the 
New  Testament.  I  do  by  no  means  assert  the  former ;  but 
have  no  hesitation  to  give  my  opinion,  after  a  pretty  thorough 
examination  of  the  subject,  that  the  reflections  of  Paul,  and 
those  usually  thrown  out  against  the  Mosaic  Code  by  Theo- 
logians, when  comparing  it  with  that  of  the  New  Testament, 
in  order  to  deprecate  the  former,  appear  to  me  extremely 
partial  and  unjust  ;  and  so  far  from  true,  that  I  think,  that 
the  Ancient  Law  has  the  advantage  over  the  precepts  of  the 
New  Testament,  in  being,  at  least,  practicable  and  consistent.* 

*  The  author  had  piepared,  in  order  to  subjoin  in  this  place,  an  exa- 
mination of  the  Mosaic  Code,  and  a  developement  of  its  principles, 
which  he  thinks  would  have  satisfied  thereadei  of  the  truth  of  what  be 
has  said  in  the  last  paragraph.  But  as  it  would  have  too  much  in- 


159 

Another  unfounded  reproach  which  Theologians,  in  or- 
der to  magnify  the  importance  of  the  New  Testament,  cast 
upon  the  Old,  is  this  :  they  say,  that  the  Old  Testament 
represents  God  only  as  the  tutelary  Deity  of  the  Israelites, 
and  as  not  so  much  concerned  for  the  rest  of  mankind.  To 
show  that  this  is  a  very  mistaken  notion,  and  to  manifest 
that  the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament  is  represented  therein, 
not  as  the  God  of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles, 
I  refer  to  these  words  :  ««  The  Lord  thy  God  is  God  of 
Gods,  and  Lord  of  Lords,  a  great  God,  a  mighty  and  a  ter- 
rible, who  regardeth  not  persons,  nor  taketh  reward.  He 
doth  execute  the  judgment  of  the  fatherless  and  widow,  and 
loveth  the  stranger,  in  giving  him  food  and  raiment.  Love 
ye  therefore  the  stranger.  Thou  shalt  neither  vex  a  stranger 
nor  oppress  him,  for  ye  know  the  heart  of  a  stranger,  seeing 
ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt  Hear  the  causes 
between  your  brethren,  and  judge  righteously  between  a 
man  and  his  brother,  and  the  stranger  that  is  with  him.  One 
law  shall  be  to  him  that  his  home  born,  and  to  the  stranger 
that  sojourneth  among  you.  The  stranger  that  dwelleth  with 
you  shall  be  as  one  born  among  you,  and  thou  shalt  love 
him  as  thyself.  I  am  the  Lord  your  God." 

Indeed,  so  little  truth  is  there  in  the  notion,  that  the  law, 
and  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  were  established  with 
the  intention  of  confining  them  to  one  people,  exclusive  of 
all  others,  that  the  Old  Testament  certainly  represents  them 
in  such  a  manner,  as  shows,  that  they  were  intended  to  be 
as  unconfined  as  the  Christian  or  Mahometan ;  its  religion, 
in  fact,  admitted  every  one  who  would  receive  it.  And 
what  is  more,  it  can  be  proved  that  the  Old  Testament  dis- 
pensation claims,  as  appears  from  itself,  to  have  been  given 
for  the  common  advantage  of  all  mankind.  And  it  is  as- 
serted in  it  (whether  truly,  or  not,  is  not  the  question  ;  it 
is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  that  it  asserts  it)  that  the  reli- 
gion contained  in  it,  will  one  day  be  the  religion  of  all  man- 
kind. For  it  declares,  that  Jerusalem  will  be  the  centre  of 
worship  for  all  nations,  and  the  temple  there,  be  "  the  house 
of  prayer  for  all  nations  ;"  that  Jehovah  will  be  the  only 
God  worshipped ;  and  his  laws  the  only  laws  obeyed.  It 
represents  Abraham  and  his  posterity  as  merely  the  instru- 

cteased  the  bulk  of  the  volume,  it  has  been  omitted.  It  is  an  institu- 
tion however  curious  enough  to  be  the  subject  of  an  interesting  discus- 
sion, which  he  should  be  happy  to  see  from  the  hands  of  one  able  to 
do  it  justice. 


160 

ments  of  Jehovah  to  bring  about  these  ends ;  it  is  repeatedly 
declared  therein,  that  the  reason  of  God's  dispensations  to- 
wards them  was,  *'  that  all  the  earth  might  know  that  Je- 
hovah is  God,  and  that  there  is  no  other  but  Him."  Ac- 
cording to  its  history,  when  God  threatened  to  destroy  the 
Israelites  for  their  perverseness  in  the  Wilderness,  and  offers 
Moses,  interceding  for  them,  to  raise  up  his  seed  to  fulfil 
the  purposes  for  which  he  designed  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham, he  tells  Moses,  that  his  purpose  should  not  be  frus- 
trated through  the  perverseness  of  the  chosen  instruments ; 
"  but  (saith  he)  as  surely  as  I  live,  all  the  earth  shall  be 
Jilted  with  the  glory  of  the  Lord"  Num.  xiv.  21.  Many  pas- 
sages of  similar  import  are  contained  in  the  Psalms,  antl 
the  Prophets.  In  fact,  there  is  no  truth  at  all  in  the  state- 
ment of  the  Catechisms,  that  the  Old  Testament  was  merely 
preparatory,  and  intended  merely  to  prepare  the  way  for 
"  a  better  covenant,"  as  Paul  says  ;  even  for  another  reli- 
gion, (the  Christian)  which  was  to  convert  all  nations  ;  for, 
(if  the  Old  Testament  be  suffered  to  tell  its  own  story,) 
we  shall  find,  that  it  claims,  and  challenges  the  honour  of 
beginning,  and  completing  this  magnificent  design  soletg  to 
itself.  I  was  going  to  overwhelm  the  patience  of  the  reader 
with  quotations  from  it  to  this  purpose  ;  but  being  willing 
to  spare  him  and  myself,  I  will  only  produce  one.,  which,  as 
it  is  direct  and  peremptory  to  this  effect,  is  as  good  as  a 
hundred,  to  demonstrate  that  the  Old  Testament  at  least 
claims  what  I  have  said.  Zech.  viii.  20,  "  Thus  saith  Je- 
hovah of  Hosts  :  it  shall  yet  come  to  pass,  that  there  shall 
come  people,  and  the  inhabitants  of  many  cities  ;  and  the 
inhabitants  of  one  city  shall  go  to  another,  saying  :  "  Let 
us  go  speedily  to  pray  before  Jehovah,  and  to  seek  Jehovah 
of  Hosts  ;  I  will  go  also.  Yea,  many  people,  and  strong 
nations  shall  come  to  seek  the  Jehovah  of  Hosts  in  Jerusa- 
lem, and  to  pray  before  Jehovah.  Thus  saith  Jehovah  of 
Hosts  ,  in  those  days  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  ten  men 
shall  take  hold  out  of  all  the  languages  of  the  nations,  even 
shall  take  hold  of  the  skirt  of  him  that  is  a  Jew,  saying,  we 
will  go  with  you,  for  we  have  heard  that^God  is  with  you." 

Be  it  so,  it  may  be  said : — "  Still  it  is  to  Christianity  the 
world  owes  the  consoling  doctrine  of  a  life  to  come. 
Life  and  immortality  were  brought  to  light  by  the  Gospel," 
say  the  Christian  Divines  ;  and  they  assert  that  the  doc- 
trine of  a  resurrection  was  not  known  to  Jew  or  Gentile, 
till  they  learned  it  from  Christ's  followers.  The  Old  Tes- 


161 

tament,  (say  they,)  taught  the  Jews  nothing  of  the  glorious 
truths  concerning  "  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the 
life  everlasting,"  their  "  begqarly  elements"  confined  their 
views  to  temporal  happiness  only."  These  assertions  I 
shall  prove  from  the  Old  Testament  itself,  to  be  contrary 
to  fact,  for  the  Jews  both  knew,  and  where  taught  by  their 
Bibles  to  expect  a  resurrection,  and  believed  it  as  firmly  as 
any  Christian  can  or  ever  did.  For- proof  hereof,  I  shall  in 
the  first  place  quote  the  37th  ch.  of  Ezekiel,  and  which  is 
as  follows,  "  The  hand  of  the  Lord  was  upon  me,  and  car- 
ried me  out  in  the  spirit  of  the  Lord,  and  set  me  down  in 
the  midst  of  the  valley,  which  was  full  of  bones.  And 
caused  me  to  pass  by  them  round  about,  and  behold,  there 
were  very  many  in  the  open  valley,  and  behold,  they  were 
very  dry.  And  he  said  unto  me,  son  of  man,  can  these 
bones  live  ?  and  I  answered,  O  Lord  God  thou  knowest.— - 
Again  he  said  unto  me,  prophesy  upon  these  bones,  and  say 
unto  them,  O  ye  dry  bones,  hear  the  word  of  the  Lord — 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  unto  these  bones,  behold,  I  will 
cause  breath  to  enter  into  you,  and  ye  shall  live,  and  I  will 
lay  sinews  upon  you,  and  will  bring  up  flesh  upon  you,  and 
cover  you  with  skin,  and  put  breath  into  you  ;  and  ye  shall 
live,  and  know  that  I  am  the  Lord.  So  I  prophesied  as  I 
was  commanded,  and  as  I  prophesied  there  was  a  noise,  and 
behold  a  shaking,  and  the  bones  came  together,  bone  to  his 
bone.  And  when  I  beheld,  lo,  the  sinews  and  the  flesh 
came  up  upon  them,  and  the  skin  covered  them  above  ;  but 
there  was  no  breath  in  them.  Then  said  he  unto  me, 
prophesy  son  of  man,  and  say  unto  the  wind,  thus  saith  the 
Lord  God,  come  from  the  four  winds  O  breath  !  and  breathe 
upon  these  slain,  that  they  may  live.  So  I  prophesied  as 
he  commanded  me,  and  the  breath  came  into  them,  and  they 
lived,  and  stood  up  upon  their  feet  an  exceeding  great  army." 

A  plainer  resurrection  than  this  is,  I  think  never  was 
preached  either  by  Christ,  or  his  followers.  Again,  Daniel 
the  Prophet  says,  "  Many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of 
the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  some  to 
shame,  and  everlasting  contempt,"  Dan.  xii.  2,  Now 
Ezekiel  lived  almost  six  hundred  years  before  Jesus,  and 
Daniel  was  cotemporary  with  the  former  ;  and  is  it  not  a 
little  surprising,  that  the  Jews  should  learn  for  the  first  time 
the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  of  the  followers  of  Jesus  Christ, 
when  they  knew  of  the  resurrection  almost  six  hundred  years 
before  he  was  born  ?  Isaiah  also,  (who  lived  before  either 


162 

Ezekiel,  or  Daniel)  in  the  26th  ch.  of  his  prophecies, 
(exciting  the  Jews  to  have  confidence  in  God,  and  not  to 
despair  on  account  of  their  captivity,  and  the  troubles  and 
afflictions,  which  they  should  suffer  therein)  foretells  them, 
that  death  would  not  deprive  them  of  the  reward  of  their 
piety,  and  virtue ;  for  God  would  raise  them  from  the  dead, 
and  make  them  happy.  "  Thy  dead  men  shall  live,  my 
dead  bodies  (i.  e.  the  bodies  of  God's  servants)  they  shall 
arise.  Awake  !  and  sing  !  ye  that  dwell  in  the  dust,  for 
thy  dew  is  as  the  dew  of  herbs."  The  meaning  of  the  last 
clause  is — that,  as  the  grass,  which  in  Oriental  countries 
becomes  brown  and  shrivelled  by  the  heat  of  the  sun,  from 
the  effects  of  the  dew,  changes,  and  springs  up,  as  it  were 
in  a  moment,  green  and  fresh,  and  beautiful ;  so  by  the  in- 
stantaneous influence  of  the  word  of  God,  the  dry,  and  de- 
cayed remains  of  mortality  shall  become  blooming  with 
immortal  freshness  and  beauty,  See  also  Hosea  xiii.  14. 
I  might  easily  multiply  passages  from  the  Old  Testament 
to  prove,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection  was  familiar  to 
the  ancient  Israelites,  but  I  suppose  that  what  I  have  al- 
ready produced  is  sufficient.  Those  however  who  wish  to 
see  the  subject  more  thoroughly  examined,  are  refened  to 
"  Greave's  Lectures  on  the  Pentateuch,"  a  work  lately 
published  in  Europe,  highly  honourable  to  the  author.  See 
also  a  Tract  upon  this  subject  published  by  Dr.  Priestly, 
in  1801. 

I  shall  only  add  one  observation  more  upon  this  subject ; 
viz.  that  it  is  very  singular,  that  Christian  Divines  should 
assert,  that  "  life  and  immortality  were  first  brought  to  light 
by  the  Gospel,"  when  the  New  Testament  iUelf  represents 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  as  being  perfectly  well  known  to 
the  Jews,  and  describes  Jesus  himself  as  proving  it  to  the 
Sadducees  out  of  the  Old  Testament  !  f 


163 


CONCLUSION. 

I  have  now  finished  my  work  ;  which  I  have  written  in 
order  to  exculpate  myself,  and  to  do  justice  to  others  ;  and 
having  re-examined  every  link  of  the  chain  of  my  argument, 
I  think  it  amply  strong  to  support  the  conclusions  attached 
to  it  Though  there  might  have  been  drawn  from  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  many  additional  arguments  corrobo- 
rative of  what  has  been  said,  yet,  at  present,  I  shall  add  no 
more  ;  as  I  think  that  what  has  been  brought  forward  has 
just  claims  to  be  considered  by  the  impartial  as  quite  suffi- 
cient to  prove  these  two  points — that  the  New  Testament 
can  neither  subsist  with  the  Old  Testament,  nor  without  it ; 
— and,  that  the  New  Testament  system  was  built  first  upon 
a  mistake,  and  afterwards  buttressed  up  with  forged,  and 
Apocryphal  documents. 

Let  the  candid  now  judge,  whether  the  Author  knowing 
these  things,  or,  at  least  persuaded  of  their  truth,  could 
have  persisted  in  affirming  (in  a  place  where  sincerity  is 
expected)  in  the  name  of  the  Almighty,  that  the  claims  of 
the  New  Testament  were  valid — without  being  a  hypocrite, 
and  an  impostor. 

Let  them  also  consider,  whether,  after  being  unable  to 
obtain  a  satisfactory  refutation  of  the  objections  contained 
in  this  volume,  his  resigning  a  profession  whose  duties  obliged 
him  to  say  what  he  was  convinced  was  false,  was  conduct 
to  be  reprehended.  And  lastly,  he  appeals  to  the  good 
sense  of  the  Public,  for  a  decision,  whether,  with  such  ob- 
jections, and  difficulties  weighing  upon  his  mind,  as  he  has 
now  exposed  his  conduct  in  that  respect,  can  reasonably  be 
attributed  to  the  unmanly  influence  of  caprice,  and 
fickleness,  (as  has  been  circulated  by  some  who  had  an 
interest  in  making  it  believed  ;•)  or  to  the  just  influence  of 
motives  deserving  a  better  name. 

With  regard  to  the  unfortunate  people  whose  arguments 
have  been  brought  forward  in  this  volume,  we  have,  reader, 
now  gone  over,  and  distinctly  felt  the  whole  ground  of  the 
controversy  between  them  and  their  persecutors,  mentioned 
in  the  Preface.  And  as  they  make  use  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  a  foundation,  admitted  and  necessarily  admitted  by 
Christians,  to  be  of  divine  authority,  and  are  surrounded  by 


164 

the  bulwarks  they  have  raised  out  of  the  demolished  en- 
trenchments of  their  adversaries;  I  do  not  see  but  that 
"  their  castle's  strength  may  laugh  a  siege  to  scorn."^  And 
after  reviewing,  and  revolving  over  and  over  in  my  own  mind 
the  arguments  on  both  sides,  I  am  obliged  to  believe,  that 
the  stoutest  Polemical  Goliah  who  may  venture  to  attack 
it,  especially  their  strong  hold — their  arguments  about  the 
Messiahship,  will  find  to  his  cost,  that  when  his  weak  point 
is  but  known.,  the  mightiest  Achilles  must  fall  before  the 
feeblest  Paris,  whose  arrow  is aimed  at  his  HEEL. 

The  Author  hopes,  and  thinks  he  has  a  right  to  expect, 
that  whoever  may  attempt  to  answer  his  Book  will  do  it 
fairly,  like  a  man  of  candour ;  without  trying  to  evade  the 
main  question — that  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  He 
fears,  that  he  shall  see  an  answer  precisely  resembling  the 
many  others  he  has  seen  upon  that  subject  Except  two, 
those  of  Skyes  and  Jeffries  (who  acknowledge  that  miracles 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  of  the  Messiahship, 
which  can  be  decided  by  the  Old  Testamont  only ;) — all 
that  he  has  ever  met  with  evade  this  question,  and  slide 
over  to  the  ground  of  miracles.  Such  conduct  in  an  an- 
swerer of  this  Book  would  be  very  unfair,  and  also  very 
absurd.  For  the  case  is  precisely  resembling  the  follow- 
ing : — A  father  informs,  by  letter,  his  son  in  a  foreign  coun- 
try that  he  is  about  to  send  him  a  Tutor,  whom  he  will  know 
by  the  following  marks : — "  He  is  learned  in  the  Mathema- 
tics, and  the  Physical  Sciences ;  acquainted  with  the  learned 
languages,  and  an  excellent  Physician;  of  a  dark  com- 
plexion ;  six  feet  high,  and  with  a  voice  loud  and  commanding" 
By  and  by,  a  man  comes  to  the  young  man,  professing  to 
be  this  Tutor  sent  to  him  by  his  Father.  On  examining  the 
man,  and  comparing  him  w itli  the  description  in  his  Father's 
letter,  he  finds  him  totally  unlike  the  person  he  had  been 
taught  to  expect.  Instead  of  being  acquainted  with  the 
Sciences,  therein  mentioned,  he  knows  nothing  about  them ; 
instead  of  being  *  six  feet  high,  of  a  dark  complexion,  and 
with  a  voice  loud  and  commanding,'  he  is  a  dimunitive  crea- 
ture of  Jive  feet,  of  a  light  complexion,  with  a  voice  like  a 
woman's. 

The  young  man,  with  his  Father's  letter  in  his  hand,  tells 
the  pretented  Tutor,  that  he  certainly  cannot  be  the  person 
he  has  been  told  to  expect  The  man  persists,  and  appeals 
to  certain  "  wonderful  works"  he  performs  in  order  to  con- 


165 

vince  the  young  man,  that  he  is  acquainted  with  the  sciences 
aforesaid,  and  that  he  is  also  six  feet  high  ;  of  a  dark  com- 
plexion ;  and  talks  like  an  Emperor!  The  young  man  re- 
plies— "  Friend,  you  are  either  an  enthusiast,  a  mad  man, 
or  something  worse.  As  to  your  *  signs  and  wonders'  I 
have  been  warned  in  my  Father's  letter  to  pay  no  regard  to 
any  such  things  in  this  case.  Besides,  you  ought  to  be  sen- 
sible, that  your  identity  with  the  person  I  am  taught  by  my 
Father's  letter  to  expect,  can  be  only  determined  by  com- 
paring you  with  the  description  of  him  given  therein. — Whe- 
ther your  *  wonderful  works'  are  real  miracles  or  not,  I 
neither  know,  nor  care.  At  any  rate,  they  cannot,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  be  any  thing  to  the  purpose  in  this  case. — 
For  you  to  pretend,  that  they  prove  what  you  offer  them  to 
prove,  is  quite  absurd,  you  might  as  well,  and  as  reasonably, 
pretend,  that  they  could  prove  Aristotle  to  have  been  Alex- 
ander ;  or  the  Methodist  George  Whitfield  to  be  the  Empe- 
ror Napoleon  Bounaparte  /" 

To  conclude,  if  any  person  should  feel  inclined  to  attempt 
to  refute  the  Book,  let  him  do  it  like  a  man ,  without  eva- 
ding the  question,  or  equivocating,  or  cavilling  about  little 
things.  Let  him  consider  the  principal  question,  and  the 
main  arguments  on  which  he  perceives  that  the  Author  re- 
lies, and  not  pass  over  these  silently,  and  hold  up  a  few  petty 
mistakes,  and  subsidiary  arguments  as  specimens  of  the 
whole  book.  Such  a  mode  of  defence  would  be  very  disin- 
genuous, and  with  a  discerning  reader  perfectly  futile,  and 
insufficient.  It  would  be  as  if  a  man  prostrate,  and  bleeding 
under  a  Lion  whose  teeth  and  claws  were  infixed  in  his  throat, 
should  tear  a  handful  of  hairs  out  of  the  animal's  mane,  and 
hold  them  up  as  proofs  of  victory. 

In  fine,  let  him,  before  his  undertaking,  carefully  consider 
these  pungent  words  of  Bishop  Beveridge,  "  Opposite  an- 
swers, and  downright  arguments  advantage  a  cause,  but 
when  a  disputant  leaves  many  things  untouched,  as  if  they 
were  too  hot  for  his  fingers  ;  and  declines  the  weight  of  other 
things,  and  alters  the  true  state  of  the  Question  :  it  is  a  shrewd 
sign,  either  that  he  has  not  weighed  things  maturely,  or  else 
(which  is  more  probable,)  that  he  maintains  a  desperate  Cause. 


19* 

APPENDIX  A. 

SEE  Cotelerius  "  Patres  Apostolic,"  Tom.  1,  p.  602. 

Extracts  of  a  letter  from  Peter  to  James  prefixed  to  the 
Clementines.  "  For  if  this  be  not  done  (says  Peter,  after 
entreating  James  not  to  communicate  his  preachings  to  any 
Gentile  without  previous  examination,)  our  speech  of  Truth 
will  be  divided  into  many  opinions,  nor  do  I  know  this 
thing  as  being  a  Prophet ;  but  as  seeing  even  now  the  be- 
ginning of  this  evil.  For  some  from  among  the  Gentiles 
have  rejected  my  legal  Preaching  ;  embracing  the  trifling, 
and  lawless  Doctrine  of  a  man  who  is  an  enemy.  And  these 
things  some  have  endeavoured  to  do  now  in  my  own  life 
time,  transforming  my  words  by  various  interpretations, 
to  the  destruction  of  the  Law  ;  as  if  /  had  been  of  the  same 
mind,  but  dared  not  openly  profess  it;  (See  Gal.  ii.  11, 
12,  &c.)  which  be  far  from  me  !  For  this  were  to  act  against 
the  Law  of  God  spoken  by  Moses,  and  which  has  the  Tes- 
timony of  our  Lord  for  its  perpetual  duration  ;  since  he 
thus  has  said,  "Heaven  and  Earth  shall  pass  away,  yet 
one  jot,  or  one  tittle  shall  not  pass  from  the  Law."  But 
these,  I  know  not  how,  promising  to  deliver  my  opi- 
nion, (see  Gal.  as  above,)  take  upon  them  to  explain  the 
words  they  heard  from  me,  better  than  I  that  spoke  them  ; 
telling  their  Disciples,  my  sense  was  that  of  which  I  had 
not  so  much  as  thought ;  now  if  in  my  own  life  time  they 
dare  feign  such  things,  how  much  more  will  those  that 
come  alter  do  the  same," 


167 


APPENDIX  B. 

Extract  from  Dodwell's  Dissertations  on  Irenseus,  Diss. 
1.  p,  38,  39.  "  The  Canonical  writings  (i.  e.  of  the  New 
Testament, )  lay  concealed  in  the  coffers  of  private  Churches, 
or  persons,  till  the  latter  times  of  Traj'in,  or  rather  perhaps 
of  Adrian  ;  so  that  they  could  not  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
Church.  For  if  they  had  been  published,  they  would  have  been 
overwhelmed  under  such  a  multitude  as  where  then  of  Apocry- 
phal, and  suppositions  Books,  that  a  new  examination  and  a 
new  Testimony  would  be  necessary  to  distinguish  them  from 
these   false  ones.     And   it  is  from   this   new  Testimony 
(whereby  the  genuine  writings  of  the  Apostles  were  dis- 
tinguished from  the  spurious   pieces   which   went   under 
their  names,)  that  depends  all  the  authority  which  the  truly 
Apostolic  writings  have  formerly  obtained,  or  which  they 
have  at  present  in  the  Catholic  Church.     But  this  fresh  at- 
testation of  the  Canon  is  subject  to  the  same  inconveniences 
with  those  traditions  of  the  ancient  persons  that  I  defend, 
and  whom  Irenaeus  both  heard  and  saw ;  for  it  is  equally 
distant  from  the  original,  and  could  not  be  made  except  by 
such  only   as  had  reached  those  remote  times.     But  it  is 
very  certain  that  before  the  period  I  mentioned  of  Trajan's 
time,  the  Canon  of  the  sacred  Books  was  not  yet  fixed,  nor 
any  certain  number  of  books  received  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
whose  authority  must  ever  after  serve  to  determine  matters 
of  faith  ;  neither  were  the  spurious  pieces  of  heretics  yet 
rejected,  nor  were  the  faithful  admonished  to  beware  of  them 
for  the  future.     Likewise  the  true  writings  of  the  Apos- 
tles used  to  be  so  bound  up  in  one  volume  with  the  Apo- 
crypha?, that  it  was  not  manifest  by  any  mark  of  public  cen- 
sure which  of  them  should  be  preferred  to  t/te  other.     We 
have  at  this  day  certain  authentic  writings  of  Ecclesiastical 
Authors  of  those  times,  as  Clemens  Roman  us,  Barnabas, 
Hermas,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarp,  who  wrote  in  the  same 
order  wherein  I  have  named  them,  and  after  all  the  other 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  except  Jude,  and  the  two 
Johns.     But  in  Hermas  you  shall  not  meet  icith  one  passage, 
or  any  mention  of  the  New  Testament ;  nor  in  all  the  rest  is 
any  one  of  the  Evangelists  called  by  his  own  name.     And 
if  sometimes  they  cite  any  passages  like  those  we  read  in 
our  Gospels,  yet  you  will  find  them  so  much  changed  and 


168 

for  the  most  part  so  interpolated,  that  it  cannot  be  known, 
whether  they  produced  them  out  of  ours,  or  some  Apocry- 
phal Gospels.  Nay  they  sometimes  cite  passages  which  it 
is  most  certain  are  not  in  the  present  Gospels.  From  hence 
therefore  it  is  evident  that  no  difference  was  yet  put  between 
the  Apocryphal  and  Canonical  Books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, especially  if  it  be  considered,  that  they  pass  no  cen- 
sure on  the  Apocryphal,  nor  leave  any  mark  whereby  the 
reader  might  discern  whether  they  attributed  less  authority 
to  the  spurious  than  to  the  genuine  Gospels  ;  from  whence 
it  may  reasonably  be  suspected,  that  if  they  cite  sometimes 
any  passages  conformable  to  ours,  it  was  not  done  through 
any  certain  design,  as  if  dubious  things  were  to  be  confirm- 
ed only  by  the  Canonical  Books,  so  as  it  is  very  possible 
that  both  those  and  the  like  passages  may  have  been  bor- 
rowed from  other  Gospels  besides  these  we  now  have.  But 
what  need  I  mention  Books  that  are  not  canonical,  when 
indeed  it  does  not  appear  from  those  of  our  Canonial  Books 
which  were  last  written,  that  the  Church  knew  any  thing  of 
the  Gospels,  or  that  the  clergy  made  a  common  use  of  them. 
— The  writers  of  those  times  do  not  chequer  their  works 
with  texts  of  the  New  Testament,  which  yet  is  the  custom 
of  the  moderns,  and  was  also  theirs  in  such  Books  as  they 
acknowledge  for  Scripture  ;  for  they  most  frequently  cite 
the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  would  doubtless  have 
done  so  by  those  of  the  New  if  they  had  then  been  received  as 
Canonical" 

So  far  Mr.  Dodwell,  and  (excepting  the  genuineness  of 
the  writings  of  Barnabas  and  the  rest,  for  they  are  incon- 
testably  ancient,)  it  is  certain  that  the  matters  of  fact  with 
regard  to  the  New  Testament  are  all  true.  Whoever  has 
an  inclination  to  write  on  this  subject  is  furnished  from  this 
passage  with  a  great  many  curious  disquisitions  wherein  to 
show  his  penetration  and  his  judgment,  as — how  the  im- 
mediate successors,  and  disciples  of  the  Apostles  could  so 
grossly  confound  the  genuine  writings  of  their  masters  with 
such  as  were  falsely  attributed  to  them  ;  or,  since  they  were 
in  the  dark  about  these  matters  so  early,  how  come  such  as 
followed  them  by  a  better  light  ;  why  all  those  Books  which 
are  cited  by  the  earliest  Fathers  with  the  same  respect  as 
those  now  received  should  not  be  accounted  equally  authen- 
tic with  them ;  and  what  stress  should  be  laid  on  the  testi- 
mony of  those  Fathers,  who  not  only  contradict  one  ano- 
ther, but  are  often  inconsistent  with  themselves  in  relating 


169 

the  very  same  facts  ;  with  a  great  many  other  difficulties 
which  deserve  a  clear  solution  from  any  capable  person. 

I  have  said  the  ancient  Heretics  asserted,  that  the  pre- 
sent Gospels  were  forgeries.  As  an  example  of  this,  take 
the  following,  from  the  works  of  Faustus,  quoted  by 
Augustine,  contra  Faustum  Lib.  32.  chapter  2.  "  You 
think,  (says  Faustus  to  his  adversaries,)  that  of  all  the 
Books  in  the  world  the  Testament  of  the  Son  only  could 
not  be  corrupted  ;  that  it  alone  contains  nothing  which 
ought  to  be  disallowed :  especially  when  it  appears,  that 
it  was  not  written  by  the  Apostles,  but  a  Img  time  after  them 
by  certain  obscure  persons  ;  who,  lest  no  credit  should  be 
given  to  the  stories  they  told  of  what  they  could  not  know, 
did  prefix  to  their  writings  the  names  of  the  Apostles,  and 
partly  of  those  who  succeeded  the  Apostles,  affirming,  that 
what  they  wrote  themselves  was  written  by  these.  Wherein 
they  seem  to  me  to  have  been  the  more  heinously  injurious 
to  the  Disciples  of  Christ,  by  attributing  to  them  what  they 
wrote  themselves  so  dissonant,  and  repugnant  ;  and  that 
they  pretended  to  write  those  Gospels  under  their  names 
which  are  so  full  of  mistakes,  of  contradictory  relations,  and 
opinions,  that  they  are  neither  coherent  with  themselves,  nor 
consistent  with  one  another.  What  is  this  therefore  bui  to 
throw  a  calumny  on  good  men,  and  to  fix  the  accusation  of 
Discord  on  the  unanimous  Society  of  Christ's  Disciples." 


170 


ADDENDA. 

THERE  is  in  the  Gospel  ascribed  to  Joht,  a  passage 
quoted  as  a  prophecy,  which,  as  it  has  been  looked  on  as  a 
proof  text,  ought  to  have  been  mentioned  in  the  7th  chap- 
ter. It  is  this.  The  Evangelist  (John  xix.  23,)  says, 
"  Then  the  soldiers,  when  they  had  crucified  Jesus,  took 
his  garments  and  made  four  parts,  to  every  soldier  a  part ; 
and  also  his  coat  ;  now  the  coat  was  without  seam,  woven 
from  the  top  throughout  They  said  therefore  among  them- 
selves, Let  us  not  rend  it,  but  cast  lots  for  it ;  that  the 
Scripture  might  be  fulfilled,  which. saith,  "  They  parted  my 
raiment  among  them,  and  for  my  vesture  they  did  cast  lots." 
Now  however  plausible  this  prophecy  !  may  appear,  it  is 
one  of  the  most  impudent  applications  of  passages  from  the 
Old  Testament  that  occurs  in  the  New.  It  is  taken  from 
the  18th  verse  of  the  22d  Psalm,  which  Psalm  was  proba- 
bly made  by  David  in  reference  to  his  humilating  and 
wretched  expulsion  from  Jerusalem  by  his  son  Absalom, 
and  what  was  done  in  consequence,  viz.  that  he  was  hunted 
by  ferocious  enemies  whom  he  compares  to  furious  bulls, 
and  roaring  lions,  gaping  upon  him  to  devour  him  ;  that 
his  palace  was  plundered  and  that  they  divided  his  treasured 
garments  ;  (In  the  East,  where  the  fashions  never  change, 
every  great  man  has  constantly  presses  full  of  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  garments,  many  of  them  very  costly  ;  they 
are  considered  as  a  valuable  part  of  his  riches,)  and  cast 
lots  for  his  robes.  This  is  the  real  meaning  of  this  passage 
quoted  as  a  prophecy.  In  the  same  Psalm  there  is  another 
verse,  which  has  been  from  time  immemorial  quoted  as  a 
prophecy  of  the  crucifixion,  verse  16,  "They  pierced  my 
hands  and  my  feet."  In  the  original  there  seems  to  have 
been  a  word  dropped  importing  «« they  tear"  or  something 
like  it,  for  it  is  literally  "Like  a  lion — my  hands  and  my  feet," 
and  there  is  there  no  word  answering  to  "  pierced."  The 
meaning  however  of  the  verse  is  not  difficult  to  be  discerned, 
"  dogs  have  compassed  me  ;  the  assembly  of  wicked  men 
have  enclosed  me  ;  like  a  lion — (they  tear)  my  hands  and 
my  feet."  The  meaning  may  be  discovered  from  the  con- 
text, where  David  represents  himself  as  in  the  utmost  dis- 
tress, helpless,  and  abandoned  amidst  his  enemies,  raging 
like  wild  beasts  around  him,  then  by  a  strong,  but  striking 
Oriental  figure,  he  represents  himself  like  a  carcase  sur- 
rounded by  dogs,  who  are  busied  in  tearing  the  flesh  from 


171 

his  bones  ;  their  teeth  fixed  in  his  hands  and  feet  and  pulling 
him  asunder.  This  is  the  import  of  the  place,  and  this  in- 
terpretation is  at  last  adopted,  for  the  first  time  I  believe 
by  Christians,  in  the  new  version  of  the  Psalms  used  by 
the  Unitarian  Church  in  London. 

There  is  not  a  more  palpable  instance  of  the  facility  with 
which  good  natured  and  voracious  Piety  is  made  to  swallow 
the  most  flimsy  arguments,  if  only  agreeable  to  its  wishes 
and  wants,  than  the  case  under  consideration.  This  Psalm 
containing  these  passages  "  they  parted  my  raiment  among 
them ;"  and  "  they  pierced  my  hands  and  feet"  is  read, 
and  for  ages  has  been  read,  in  the  name  of  God,  to  the 
good  people  of  the  Church  of  England,  on  every  Good  Fri- 
day, as  undoubtedly  a  prophecy  of  the  Crucifixion  ;  when 
yet  the  learned  Divines  of  the  Church  of  England  (and  of 
these  it  can  boast  a  noble  Catalogue  indeed,)  certainly 
know,  and  are  conscious,  that  the  Psalm  which  contains  these 
passages  has  no  more  relation  to  Jesus  Christ,  than  it  has 
to  Nebuchadnezzer. 

A  reference  ought  to  have  been  subjoined  at  the  end  of 
the  10th  chapter  to  the  Dialogue  called  "  Philopatris"  in 
Lucian's  Works,  for  an  account  of  the  customs,  habits,  and 
personal  appearance  of  the  early  Christians,  corroborative 
of  what  is  said  in  the  17th  and  18th  chapters  of  this  work. 
Lest  however  Lucian's  testimony  in  this  matter  should  be 
objected  to,  because  he  was  a  satirist,  and  of  course  may 
have  been  guilty  of  giving  an  overcharged  picture  of  the 
subjects  of  his  ridicule  ;  I  request  the  reader  to  peruse,  if 
he  can  obtain  it,  "  Lami's  Account  of  the  Domestic  habits 
and  personal  appearance,  and  practices  of  the  Primitive 
Christians."  Lami  was  a  very  learned,  and  sincere  Chris- 
tian, and  of  course  his  testimony  cannot  be  objected  lo,  and 
the  reader  will  find,  on  a  perusal  of  his  work,  that  what  I 
have  asserted  in  the  17th  and  18th  chapters  is  altogether 
true,  and  not  the  whole  truth  neither.  Indeed  that  the  state- 
ments in  those  chapters  as  to  the  effects  of  the  peculiar 
maxims  of  the  New  Testament  upon  the  heart,  and  under- 
standing are  substantially  correct,  will  I  believe  be  discover- 
ed by  asking  any  honest  individual  among  the  Methodists 
who  is  an  enthusiast,  i.  e.  sincere,  and  thorough  going  in  his 
religion.  I  have  no  doubt  that  he,  or  she  will  avow  without 
hesitation  to  the  enquirer,  and  glory  in  it,  that  chastity  is 
more  honourable  than  marriage  ;  that  Faith  is  every  thing ; 


172 

that  'doubt  is  damnable,  and  a  proof  of  "  an  unrrgenerated 
mind  ;"  that  all  the  goods  and  pleasures  of  this  world  are 
trash  ;  that  human  institutions  are  mere  "carnal  ordi- 
nances ;  and  that  human  science  and  learning  is  a  snare 
to  faith,  and  an  abomination  to  a  true  Disciple  of  the  cross. 


NOTE— BY  THE  PUBLISHER. 


The  reader  of  the  preceding  pages  cannot  have  failed  to 
have  observed  that  the  Author,  in  many  instances,  has  ex- 
pressed his  doubts  as  to  a  Divine  Revelation  being  contain- 
ed in  the  Old  Testament.  His  arguments  19  this  book  are, 
therefore,  only  founded  on  this  fact,  acknowledged  both  by 
Jews  and  Christians,  and  not  on  his  own  convictions ;  but 
he  has,  in  a  subsequent  Work,  entitled,  "  Five  Pebbles, 
from  the  Brook"  which  was  written  in  reply  to  a  "Defence  of 
Christianity,"  by  Mr.  Everett,*  made  use  of  the  following 
remarkable  expressions  : — 

"  This  Book  is  not  the  work  of  an  Infidel.  I  am  not  an. 
Infidel ;  what  I  have  learned  and  seen  in  Europe,  Asia,  and 
Africa,  while  it  has  confirmed  my  reasons  for  rejecting  the 
New  Testament,  has  rooted  in  my  mind  the  conviction  that 
the  ancient  Bible  does  contain  a  Revelation  from  the  God 
of  Nature,  as  firmly  as  my  belief  in  the  first  proposition  of 
Euclid." 

"  The  whole  analogy  of  nature,  while  it  is  in  many  respects 
opposed  to  the  characteristics  ascribed  to  the  Divinity  by  the 
metaphysicians,  yet  bears  witness  in  my  opinion,  that  this 
world  was  made,  and  is  governed  by  just  such  a  Being  as 
the  Jehovah  of  the  Old  Testament,  "while  the  palpable  ful- 
filment of  the  predictions  contained  in  that  Book,  and 
which  is  so  strikingly  manifest  in  the  Old  World,  leaves  in 
my  mind  no  doubt,  whatever,  of  the  ultimate  fulfilment  of 
all  that  it  promises,  and  all  that  it  threatens." 

He  closes  his  Work  with  the  following  note  : — 

"  I  believe  that  the  Scholar  will  not  find  any  misstate- 
ment  of  facts,  nor  the  Logician  any  flaw  in  the  arguments, 
the  Book  lays  before  the  public.  On  these  two  points  I 
feel  secure  in  this  respect ;  and  I  calmly  and  firmly  lay  my 
gage  at  the  feet  of  all  Christendom.  Let  him  who  dares  to 
take  it  up,  do  it" 

If  Subscribers  offer,  The  «  FIVE  PEBBLES,"  will 
be  reprinted.— PRICE,  g2. 


*  Mr.  Everett  wrote  the  "  Defence  of  Christianity"  in  reply  to  the 
"  Grounds  of  Christianity  Examined." 


\\EUNIVER% 


1    1 


University  of  California  Library 
Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


R 


NAY  03  2004 


enewals 
:5-9188 


- 

S5 


3      | 
£      ^ 


A    000  005  624     2      __ 


-£.       uj" 

I  1 


^\\E-UNIVER% 


\\E-UNIVER% 


1  a 


?  § 

II 


